Have you ever read something and when you were finished thought 'what the heck just happened?' That was pretty much what this was for me. I have read Shakespeare's tragedies before and know that death is common throughout the plays and especially in the final act. However, it still strikes me as funny that suddenly the majority of the cast is dying and we never see how most of it happens. For instance, we are suddenly alerted to the fact that Goneril has poisoned Regan and she is in fact dying. What I want to know is when did we ever discuss poisoning anyone and when did this even happen? On top of that, after Regan dies Goneril does too; apparently by her own making. Why did she do this again? Did she not want to be prosecuted? Did she suddenly feel guilty about everything she'd done? So few questions answered about that. Of course, then we also have the "confrontation of brothers" and Edmund ends up fatally wounded, but stays alive long enough to participate in conversation and alert everyone to his plans to have Lear and Cordelia executed. Of course, it's already too late and after Edmund dies, we find Cordelia also dead. In grief, Lear announces he killed the one who did it and later kills himself. How he managed THAT I haven't the slightest idea. The body count of this play was all in all, pretty funny.
I really liked the play. Even though I am a little biased when it comes to Shakespeare, I thought it was quite emotional and sad. It is easy to see why this play has so many renditions of it. Although I think plays, especially Shakespeare's, are hard to understand without the visual aids. Or if someone is not familiar with the language. Getting sidetracked by footnotes isn't fun and can easily lose the mood of the entire piece. Not to mention the fact that most earlier works are notorious for having very little stage direction or scene description and, if you're not used to this idea, it can be hard to get involved in the play. Some people just don't respond easily to the thought of coming up with the entire interpretation on their own. However, the beauty in Shakespeare's works is that almost everything is up to interpretation. So many people can receive the wonder of the language and story with the emotion and images of their own minds. For those reasons alone I don't think that Shakespeare is for everyone. That's not to say that only superior readers or certain people would understand and appreciate it more, it's just not a genre that everyone can easily adapt to. Plays, unfortunately, seem to suffer for that reason.
4 comments:
I think that you're right in saying that a lot happens without really explaining how it happened, but that's also what I think separates King Lear from all the other Shakespeare I have read. In King Lear it is the dialogue that makes the play great. Someone in class compared Shakespeare to Jerry Bruckheimer, but I would argue that in King Lear he is actually the Kevin Smith(of Clerks, and Mallrats fame) of his generation. There isn't much direction or action, but the dialogue and the wording of each passage helps you feel the emotion he is trying to portray.
I have to agree with the though of "what the heck just happened here?" Even though I have read other Shakespeare's tragedies it is always some what shocking in the end. It's as if you get to the last act and say "all right, who's up next?"
Possibly Goneril kills herself out of guilt, or maybe because Edmund dies? I can't recall if he dies before or after her.
I have read this before and in my previous class we talked about the theme of the unnatural. Especially with the death of Cordelia, which seems unnecessary, maybe Goneril's death is another of just the unnatural plot.
I will agree too that footnotes can be distracting and that there is some things that are lost without being able to see the play, but it's good to be able to appreciate Shakespeare and his words.
I agree with you, when you point out the play needs to have some visual aid. This play in particular, needs visual aids as the subject matter seems to be bombarding the reader, quite quickly with metaphors and high , complicated language. I was distracted many times by the foot notes, and since I am not an actor find it hard at times to pinpoint important phrases that should be emphasized to clearly understand them.
On the poisoning: This is a perfect example of Shakespeare's strong suit being language, not plot... His drama is really just his poetry in another form (and the better for it, if you ask me).
I think you're right in that the play's emphasis on plain speech lends itself well to different interpretations and makes it more adaptable.
There seems to be a kind of catch-22 to drama like this: In writing, the visual aspect and tone are lost; on the stage, the audience member cannot watch at the rate of his or her choosing or with as great an attention to detail as the reader can read.
I think this is why today, when so many people, like you mentioned, aren't familiar with the language, it's especially important that both print and stage be used to complement the understanding of the other.
Post a Comment