King Lear (Folger Shakespeare Library)

King Lear by William Shakespeare

King Lear is Shakespeare's finest tragedy and it is Shakespeare's most psychologically dark tragedy. King Lear is an intensive study of human nature.

Kid needed it for a college course. If you need this book, do yourself a favor and just buy a new one from these people and don't waste your time trying to save a couple dollars on a used book from somewhere else. (been there). The price is almost the same anyway, plus you will get it quicker this way.

I ordered two books on the same date from the same company thinking I would get the books at the same time. They were needed for a class. One book arrived the next week and the other book has yet to arrive. After next week I will no longer even need the book that I am still waiting on. When I wrote the company they said it was on its way, but that was quite a while ago. I purposefully chose a company that posted both books and was located close enough to get the books in time for class.

Because of the store's tendency to group reviews of multiple formats together into one product, I want to start off by making sure everyone knows this review is for the 2017 audio drama adaptation created by Big Finish (credited here as the audiobook).

Back when I was in school, we had to study Shakespeare for our English classes. We did all the ones you usually come across: Romeo & Juliet, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Hamlet, Macbeth, and my high school offered a British Literature class that even taught The Tempest. I was a big drama kid in school (still am now at 24). In my middle school, I took a drama class with an amazing teacher. The way he talked about Shakespeare really inspired me to seek out his work for myself and read it outside of classes.

King Lear is my favorite of Shakespeare's tragedies (with some hesitation, I would say it's my favorite of Shakespeare's plays). So many wonderful parts from the brokenhearted Lear, to the iron-willed scheming Goneril, the bloodthirsty Regan, the power-hungry Edmund. This play spoke to me in a way that others did not.

Up to this point, I've "seen" three different adaptations of this play: the BBC production starring Ian McKellen, Sylvester McCoy, and Frances Barber, the filmed stage production fro the 70s I think (citation needed) starring James Earl Jones, Raul Julia, Paul Sorvino, and Rene Auberjonois, and this audio drama starring David Warner, Louise Jameson, and Lisa Bowerman.

Of the three productions I've experienced, this audio drama is the absolute best adaptation bar none. Big Finish's audio dramas always seem to be absolute perfection. David Warner (Tron, The Omen)leads an amazing ensemble as tragic king (recreating the performance he played in 2005, often considered one of his best performances alongside his Hamlet). Also phenomenal are Louise Jameson (Doctor Who) and Lisa Bowerman as Lear's daughters Goneril and Regan respectively. Both actresses really flesh out their characters so that their more than just scheming villains, they add a lot of humanity and reason to their characters. Another highlight is Raymond Coulthard as Edmund who avoids the temptation to play the role as a moustache-twirling villain. He injects a lot of humanity into the role, portraying Edmund first as a man who resents his illegitimate status and plots to steal notoriety, knowing he can never legally achieve it, and then as a man who's dug a hole so deep, his only option is to keep digging.

I've listened to this play numerous times now. Not only is the acting amazing, everything else is as well. The sound design (especially during the famous storm), and the music are all wonderful.

(for people buying the CD-- as I don't know what the download comes with-- the third disc comes with a "making of" feature and interviews from the cast and crew, and that's great as well.)

If you're looking for a performance of Lear rather than just reading it, this is the one to go with.

Before seeing John Lithgow's Lear at Shakespeare in the Park I luckily picked up RSC/Modern Library edition to read beforehand. It's very, very good. Peter Brooks' 1960s production is highlighted but it is misleading to say it is overemphasized. Trevor Nunn, Adrian Noble and Deborah Warner's productions are all discussed, indeed they are interviewed in the back pages. And other productions, including foreign ones are considered. This bringing Lear to life is a wonderful perspective, and one that is often missed in classrooms or by a straightforward read.

Our understanding of the play is seasoned with delightful tidbits and trivia: Lear has been produced more times since WWII than the 400 years prior; until the early 20th century, producers routinely changed the play's bleak, devastating ending (in some versions Cordelia and Edgar live happily ever after!) A Japanese production by Yukio Ninagawa hurled real boulders across and downstage to emphasize the devastation wrought when the natural order cracks., causing more concern for the actors' lives then their performances. Good stuff and very informative.

And then of course there is the play. Which is as good as theater gets.

First the product itself... Studying Shakespeare can be a really fulfilling experience. Personally, I had always wanted to be "well read" but I had really suffered when t came to Shakespeare. I used several study aids to conquer my personal shortcomings but this is number one. I simply love this product. This book takes Shakespeare plays and puts a "plain English" or modern English translation right next to the original script. It is great.

The play itself is one of the really great Shakespeare tragedies. King Lear starts to share his kingdom with his daughters while still alive. The ensuing play is full of all the misadventures that could occur in a smaller way in any family except it turns completely tragic. For me it is not easy to have a "favorite" tragedy. It is impossible for me to enjoy the suffering of others. I simply try to enjoy the art. Thank You...

Much has been made of the state of mind of King Lear, by scholars and theater critics alike. The idea of dividing his kingdom among his three daughters and asking each of them to profess how much they love him, is highly questionable. What good could possibly come of it? Of the three, only Cordelia is truly honest, and Lear would know this. Her lack of pretension and innate honesty is surely why he loved her most. Still, he rages at her failure to give him the answer he wants, withdraws her third of the kingdom, and banishes her. Then, equally unwise, he places himself in the hands of the two conniving daughters who, seeing what he’s done to Cordelia, conclude he’s senile and therefore not to be trusted or, as it turns out, even tolerated. One thing leads to another, and Lear finds himself cast out into the storm, with his faithful companion, the Fool. Cordelia is deeply hurt but lands on her feet. She marries the French King, which means all of France rather than a third of Britain is her domain. She returns with French forces that are defeated and she is captured.

Whether Lear is foolish, paranoid, or senile, he has grown old without becoming wise. Up to the beginning of Act III, he has done little to win our sympathy. He blames everyone but himself for his suffering. The Fool rides him, continually holding up to him the fact of his own folly, while Lear remains clueless. Lear: “Dost thou call me fool, boy?” Fool: “All thy other titles thou hast given away.” The irony of their exchanges is the Fool speaks truth, while Lear remains delusional, incapable of uttering a rational sentence. One of the extraordinary aspects of the play is Lear’s transformation, from out-of-touch king who lacked humanity who, as he sips into madness, treats those around him with humble courtesy, perhaps knowing for the first time what it is to be truly human. It’s not until he’s become mad that he sees and speaks truth.

The other extraordinary aspect of the play is the role of forgiveness. Lear’s awakening from madness to find himself in the presence of Cordelia, the daughter he so wronged, is one of the most touching scenes Shakespeare ever wrote. Lear cannot believe she would forgive him, after all he has done. He asks for poison instead. Lear: “If have poison for me, I will drink it. I know you do not love me, for your sisters have, as I do remember, done me wrong. You have some cause, they have not.” Cordelia: “No cause, no cause.” In his short pithy book, “Shakespeare and Forgiveness,” the author William H. Matchett, writes: “Lear, in his readiness for poison, indicates the degree to which he considers himself unforgivable, his acknowledgement that he was to blame. Cordelia’s is the supreme forgiveness which denies there was anything to forgive. It is, then, only Lear’s great need for reassurance that has him, even after it has been given, continuing to ask her to ‘forgive and forgive.’ When they have been captured by Edmund, and Cordelia asks, ‘Shall we not see these daughters and these sisters?’ Lear protests: ‘No, no, no! Come, let’s away to prison: We too alone will sing like birds i’ th’ cage: When thou dost ask me blessing, I’ll kneel down Ask thee of forgiveness.’”

Alas, we expect a happy ending, but that is not to be. Writes Machett: “In the ‘King Lear’ world, forgiveness is not enough. That it exists at all makes this world richer than those of (the plays) ’Julius Caesar’ and ‘Troilus and Cressida’; that it exists is also precisely what makes Cordelia’s death so overwhelmingly heartbreaking. We think we have a promised happy ending—no device to conclude a play, but a fully realized triumph of love—and then it is taken from us in what must be the most shattering catastrophe in all literature.”

King Lear is tough to watch and is perhaps an acquired taste. Shakespeare’s play fared unhappily from 1681 when it fell into the hands of Nahum Tate, who revised the script to produce a happy ending. For 150 years, Tate’s was practically the only version that audiences would accept. In the course of two revivals (in 1823 and 1826), more of the original play began to be performed. By 1850, the original play was pretty much restored, and that’s how it’s been performed ever since. The Penguin Shakespeare is a good as any, well-footnoted and with a lively introduction (by Stephen Orgel of Stanford University) to set the scene. Whatever edition you do choose, to fully appreciate the play, I recommend Matchett's book (above) and "Shakespeare" by Germaine Greer. Five stars.

Although RA Foakes' Arden3 edition appeared some years after those of Wells & Taylor (Complete Oxford) and Jay L Halio (Cambridge) it did not follow their precedent of issuing separate texts based on Quarto and Folio originals. These early texts (Q 1608 and F 1623 respectively) occasionally offer quite different versions of the play and reconciling them to form a single, coherent whole is a task that is, arguably, less elegant than the dual edition solution. By comparison, Arden's text looks cumbersome, with numerous Q and F superscripts surrounding passages found exclusively in one or other source.

Foakes is well aware that his single, 'conflated' text isn't as fashionable as those of the 'revisionists' mentioned above, who believe that the Folio text of Lear represents Shakespeare's revised and final draft, and that modern editors should not pick and mix between Q and F but respect the integrity of the two early sources. While seemingly reactionary, Foakes is in fact countering the new orthodoxy of Halio et al. In his view, their 'dogmatic and purist stance ... abandons the idea of King Lear as a single work of which we have two versions.' He is cautious and level-headed in his approach, aware of the limitations of scholarly speculation and in presenting both Q and F variants he allows the reader to make up her/his own mind.

Aside from this central controversy, Arden3 Lear has much to offer. Foakes reminds us of some key differences between the Jacobean world and our own: the original audience, he says, would have tuned in much more readily than us to puns and linguistic innovation; grasped the symbolic difference between crown and coronet; fully understood the distinctions of 'thou' and 'thee'; and recognised the constitutional impossibility of a monarch giving away his kingdom as though it were in his personal gift. The Introduction also presents illuminating discussions on loyalty and disobedience (in which Oswald could conceivably be seen as an ideal servant and Kent a bad one), on the problem of illusion in Gloucester's attempted suicide (IV.6) and on the influence of writers such as Harsnett, Erasmus and Montaine. Plentiful examples of dramatic practice from the play's long stage history are skilfully integrated into these discussions, while its equally rich critical history - especially that of the C20 - is helpfully evaluated. The conclusion is that there can be no return to Christian redemptionist optimism on the one hand or to totally nihilistic interpretations on the other. A recognition of the play's complexity, paradoxes and contradictions have led many to feel, in the words of Richard Fly, 'a deep distrust of all attempts at closure' in King Lear.

Ultimately, therefore, this Arden3 is not as radical as rival editions. But it presents an honest, balanced and democratic version of the play in which judgements are occasionally forcefully expressed and occasionally left unresolved. It is comprehensive, authoritative and thought-provoking and should be of value to any serious student.

Shakespeare, clearly a thinking man, may have identified with Hamlet's worry that he lacked the impulsive aggression of the soldier-hero, Fortinbras. Shakespeare obviously half admired characters such as Harry Hotspur and other young hotheads who didn't hesitate to rush into battle. However it is the curse and advantage of the intelligent person that they can foresee complications from impulsive behaviour. This means that they may hesitate to rush into action, a hesitation that may look timid.

It is a further curse that young women often admire the young hothead because he looks so strong, confident and brave. In reality, he may just be too stupid to be able to predict the trouble that his aggression is going to cause but his admirers are not aware of that.

Hamlet was wise to hesitate in confronting his uncle who was, after all, the king and was clearly motivated to defend himself against a charge of murder. The only "evidence" that Hamlet had was that a ghost had told him about his uncle's supposed crime - a flimsy reason to proceed if ever there was one.

Was Hamlet the first of such conflicted heroes? The most famous descendant of Hamlet is of course Superman. Superman's everyday identity rests in Clark Kent, ignored by Lois Lane for the "crime" of being mild-mannered. Kent can only get Lois's attention by transforming into Superman who is able to instantly assess any danger and respond without hesitation - and without consultation with any others who might be affected by his decisions!

In reality someone who acts like Superman is quite a nuisance. We do need to assess situations, consult and discuss what needs to be done (even if this sometimes has to be done hastily). While characters like Superman, the Lone Ranger, Mighty Mouse and Sonic the Hedgehog remain popular, in fact they don't present a role model that we should admire.

Shakespeare did not present a worthwhile role model in the character of Hamlet either. Hamlet didn't think things through or consult wisely. He dithered and played complex games, causing a lot of deaths including his own in the process.

Similarly, Shakespeare didn't provide a useful role model in the character of Henry V. This character did move from being hesitant to becoming a man of action. However he then used that new role to invade France on the flimsiest of pretexts. It is true that he won the battle but the cost to the lives of the various soldiers dragooned into battle on both sides was wretched and unforgivable.

The victory also meant that France felt compelled to later follow Joan of Arc into yet another war to reclaim the lands that were lost. Deaths on battlefields are never fun but in those days a person could lie for days, untended while their wounds became infected enough to finally kill them.

In fact, Shakespeare seemed unable to make up his mind as to what attitude to take towards what a king should be like. He depicted the peaceful Henry VI as way too airy-fairy to have power but Richard III was aggressive in an evil and manipulative way - dressed up in these terms in order to reassure Queen Elizabeth I that she was entitled to her crown even though it had not been handed down from parent to child in legitimate succession.

The play Hamlet reminds us of the pressures young men can be under. If they stupidly roar their cars up and down the street to impress the girls they are regarded as lacking in impulse control but if they don't do such things, they may be seen as timid. We need TV shows which present a new kind of man who is strong and brave but also works within a team and uses his head as well as his body to tackle difficult situations.

This Modern Shakespeare ebook edition is awesome for general reading, and includes three versions of the play to pick from (original play with modern translation embedded alongside each speech, the modern translation alone, or the original play alone). It is organized very efficiently for Kindle reading and maneuverability, and comes at a great low price—highly recommended for the general reader. If you are looking for a bit more academic reading experience, you can pay a little more and get the Folger Library Shakespeare edition (also available in ebook), which includes definitions/commentary on alternating pages from the text, and some critical analysis at the end—good for the reader wishing to be a little less influenced by a modern interpretation. If you are looking for a paperback copy with side-by-side modern translation, I’d recommend the No Fear edition.

Many think King Lear is too big for the stage. It certainly overwhelms audiences with the death of men, the death of love, the death of realms. We leave the theater drained of life, left with no hope for happiness in old age or of keeping the love of even our family. It's a nihilistic existential play written three hundred years before Kierkegaard, Nietzche, Sartre, or Hemingway. King Lear is perhaps Shakespeare's greatest work but it is a dark and depressing one.

Its grandeur does work extremely well with film. Akira Kurosawa transposed the story to medieval Japan and everything about the production is spectacular. Still, it is ridiculous to think that King Lear is too big for the stage. It works so well because the story unfolds before us, close enough for us to touch it. For instance, we laugh heartily when Kent unleashes a string of insults on the devious servant Oswald.

OSWALD: What dost thou know me for?
KENT: A knave, a rascal, an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited, , hundred-pound, filthy worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking, whoreson, glass-glazing, superserviceable, finical rogue; one-trunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a bawd in a way of good service, and art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pander, and the son and heir of a mongrel bitch; one whome I will beat into clamorous whining if thou deny'st the least syllable of thy addition.

Now that's lively and even Monty Python couldn't improve on that!

Later we recoil in horror when Corwall gouges out Gloucester's eyes right in front of us, as his wife Regan happily looks on.

Finally at the end, we follow Lear into despair when he realizes Cordelia will never, never, never, never, never breathe again. Lear dies but only after first losing everything. All three daughters are dead, his vassals are gone, his kingdom is destroyed, and the few remaining servants cannot stop the awful nothingness from sucking out his life.

Vincent Poirier, Tokyo

Of the four great Shakespearean tragedies, indeed the darkest is King Lear. King Lear starts with the foolish decision of an Old King to split his kingdom. Then it proceeds to get worse. "How sharper than a serpent's tooth to have a thankless child." is the line that comes first to mind when thinking about this tale of woe.

But this story brings about many human problems that indeed are with us today. The idea of family inheritance, and who should get what still vexes us in modern times. Indeed have we not all seen families torn apart by the decisions made by those who have passed away. That Regan and Goneril each die of their own greed is a part and parcel of the cathartic nature Shakespeare offers. However, the conclusion of many modern estate issues is no less tragic.

Also, how does one deal with dementia in ones we love? How can that dementia make the person's reason so flawed that advantage is taken of them? These are other questions of this story that indeed comes to pass. Why cannot Lear understand that Cordelia really does love him? Yet, by the time he even gets an idea, it is too late. In much the same way, Gloucester allows himself to be gulled by Edmund. Edgar of course disguises himself, and this plot line, where Gloucester, as Oedipus in the Greek tragedy, has his eyes gouged out, are indeed valuable to make the play's dimness come even further to light.

King Lear is so dark that there is even little hope to grasp even at the end. To me it is the ultimate Shakespearean tragedy. It also shows some heroic matters. Albany is loyal even though cuckolded by his wife. Kent is the picture of loyalty, even to his own humiliation. Kent's abruptness is his strength and also his downfall. Most wise kings accept contrary opinions. When Kent is banished at the beginning, yet disguises himself to continue service, one sees the lengths the truly loyal will go in order to serve their masters. Edgar's disguise and aid to his father also gives relief into the state of the Kingdom. When the good characters have to hide out, it is no good time to be in the kingdom. The luxurious and seamy reign and despair is unending. Such is the case in this darkest of the dark of the great Shakespearean tragedies.

King Lear is a challenging play that requires several strong performances to pull off. Big Finish does this, thanks in large part to the absolutely spot on casting by director Barnaby Edwards. Performances are brilliant, led by David Warner's Lear. The adaptation is well-done, and the sound effects are used to full advantage. Overall, Big Finish has turned out another great release for those who love Shakespeare or great drama in general.

"King Lear" is where Shakespeare takes off the gloves. He brings us right to the edge of the abyss, then kicks us over that edge. This is the most devastating by far of the Shakespeare tragedies -- a play which leaves the reader shattered as the curtain falls.

I find it hard to explain where the visceral power of this play comes from. The plot is fairly typically Shakespeare, perhaps a little more complicated than usual, mixing elements taken from legend and from the historical record. At the outset, Lear is a narcissistic, bullying despot. His two older daughters, Regan and Goneril, are a couple of bad seed cougars, both of whom lust after Edmund, an equally amoral hyena. Their goody-two-shoes sister Cordelia behaves with such one-note pointless stubbornness, it almost seems like she's not playing with a full deck. Over in the Gloucester household, Edmund (the [...] hyena) is plotting against both his brother Edgar and his father. Lear's court is filled with lickspittle sycophants. Only two people have the guts to speak truth to power, and one of them wears the costume of a Fool. There's a nasty storm brewing on the heath.

Fasten your seatbelts - it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Characters in "King Lear" pay dearly for their weaknesses. Gloucester is blinded in order that he might see, but is denied any lasting happiness; after reconciling with Edgar, he dies. Lear will be driven insane before he finally learns to empathize with the poor and the meek. We watch him return from the brink of madness only to discover that's not enough. Before the curtain falls, Shakespeare gives us what is arguably the most brutal scene in his entire work.

Enter Lear with Cordelia (dead) in his arms -

Howl, howl, howl! O, you are men of stone!
Had I your tongues and eyes, I'd use them so
That heavens vault should crack. She's gone forever.

Even if, like me, you find Cordelia a saccharine, two-dimensional character, this scene is shattering. Two pages later, after learning that his fool has hanged himself, Lear dies, broken-hearted. Edgar, Kent and Albany - literally the only characters still standing - are left to bury the dead and move on, as best they can.

Why do I find this the most affecting of Shakespeare's plays? (I've seen seven different stage productions, and two on TV, and it only gets more powerful upon repeated exposure.) I can't really pin it down - it's a combination of various elements. The characters are idiosyncratic, fully realised, and their behavior is highly relatable, so the play is convincing at the level of the individual protagonists. But the fable-like nature of the opening scene also confers a kind of universal quality to its message, and the themes explored within the play - abuse of power, relationships within families, responsibilities of parents and children, the breakdown of the natural order and its consequences, the human capacity for enormous cruelty - are no less relevant today than in Shakespeare's time. The skillfully constructed parallel plotting of the Lear and Gloucester arcs adds to the power of the story, the breakdown in natural human behavior is further accentuated by the raw fury of the elements during the storm scenes, where Nature echoes Lear's fury.

Ultimately, there's no getting away from the uncompromising bleakness of the play's message. In Gloucester's words - "as flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport". The nihilism of "King Lear" has always disturbed audiences, and it was common during the 18th and 19th centuries to stage an altered version, in which Cordelia was allowed to live, implying a more upbeat view of human nature. But, given what the events of the last century demonstrate about mankind's vicious capacity for self-destruction, one has to think that Shakespeare got it right first time. As usual.

King Lear is the most devastating, and most powerful, piece in the cannon of Shakespeare. The characters in this play span the spectrum of human behavior and yet Shakespeare creates in each of them a reality that is hard to reject, even when their actions are most disturbing.
Despite the nihilism of the piece I never feel that Shakespeare is negating human existence, but rather, encouraging his audience to embrace the human experience in all its splendor and squalor. He has the blinded (and formerly suicidal) Gloucester say "You ever-gentle gods, take my breath from me; let not my worser spirit tempt me again to die before you please." Gloucester has realized there are forces larger then us that "shape our ends" and that being fully human means to absorb the good and the bad.
In the characters of Edgar and Cordelia Shakespeare creates the stereotypical "good child." However, he also endows both creations with an otherworldly kindness towards their fathers that speaks to our better natures. The way that both children nurse their disturbed fathers back to health is a lesson in humility and forgiveness.
The villains in this text are the classical villains, from which all other villains flow, and the many subplots combine in a delicious web of deceit and destruction that ensnares in its web the very spiders that spun it.
However, the ultimate beauty in King Lear is in the power of redemption. When Lear begs the forgiveness of the daughter he has truly wronged, she responds with "No cause." We have all hurt someone we love, and who among us would not like to be absolved by those powerful words, "No cause"?
Lear's redemption and forgiveness is our own.
As for the Pelican Shakespeare series, they are my favorite editions as the scholarly research is usually top notch and the editions themselves look good as an aesthetic unit. It looks and feels like a play and this compliments the text's contents admirably. The Pelican series was recently reedited and has the latest scholarship on Shakespeare and his time period. Well priced and well worth it.

King Lear, a well known Shakespearean tragedy is equally humorous and depressing. I highly recommend it for the comedy and the tragic storyline that is quite entertaining. We begin with a separate story of Gloucester, the father poking fun at his bastard son, Edgar while his legitimate son, Edmund, is spared. This causes Edgar to finally crack and become a wacko homeless man in the woods and leads to conflict later in the plot. Then we have the main plot involving Lear himself. He is about to pass away soon as his old age approaches and needs to decide on who he shall leave his kingdom to of his three daughters and two of their husbands. So he goes to his only children, Regan, Goneril, and Cordelia, knowing they are well aware of his undecided affairs and asks them to profess their love. Regan and Goneril do but Cordelia refuses to play such a silly game, which gets her banished from the kingdom and owning any of the estate. One of her suitors also decides he will not marry her now that she has no part of the kingdom. But her second suitor, France, a french guy, admires her for her actions and they leave the Kingdom to marry. Meanwhile, Regan and Goneril, Lear’s unfaithful daughters plot against him, trying to figure out how they can take everything hs has. The king learns of this and they throw him out where he also becomes a homeless wacko and actually meets up with Edgar who has disguised himself. Also, his loyal Fool who has ironically enough been the voice of reason throughout the play goes with Lear to give him comfort and advice. Later several deaths occur like in any good tragedy but you’ll have to read the play to discover who and how. i’ll warm you, it can be gruesome!
I thought the play portrayed a sometimes raunchy sense of humor that no first time reader expects from Shakespeare but is prevalent is almost all his works. On the very first page there is a scandalous joke when Gloucester makes fun of Edgar and says “Do you smell a fault?” In modern times we might say “do you smell a dirty whore’s vagina in the air?” As if he could smell it on Edgar as a result of his unplanned birth from the woman. He is literally calling his mother a slut and an illegitimate love child right in front of him. It's jokes like these that had me gripping my sides throughout. But you may want to be familiar with Shakespearean language if you don’t want these to go right over your head. If you enjoyed Othello then you would enjoy this book equally. The plot itself is interesting and does not lul too much anywhere. In the second half the violence really picks up fast. There is something about other people's misery that humans dig into in almost a sinister way. I know I did in this play. After all, it is a tragedy.

<King Lear> Is there a need for yet another recording of "King Lear"? If it is a superlative reading, then one would quote "Reason not the need" and accept it for a great addition to a swelling library of complete Shakespeare on recordings. We still have available on Caedmon audio tapes the 1965 "Lear" with Paul Scofield in the title role with Pamela Brown and Rachel Roberts as that particularly nasty pair of sisters, Goneril and Regan. 1988 brought out the BBC Audio Book (Modern Library) with Alec Guiness, Jill Bennett and Eilen Atkins in those roles. In 1994 there was a BBC Radio set with John Gielgud, Judi Dench and Eileen Atkins (again) in those three roles; while a late addition to the Arkangel Complete Shakespeare series gave us Trevor Peacock, Penny Downie and Samantha Bond, Peacock giving a more domestic, less grand reading of the role.
Now Naxos Audiobooks has released on tape and CD yet another version with Paul Scofield again, Harriet Walter (Gonerill, as it is spelled on this set), Sara Kestelman (Regan), Emilia Fox (Cordelia), Peter Blythe (Albany), and Jack Klaff (Cornwall) as the dysfunctional royal family. As the parallel set, we have Alec McCowen (Gloucester), Richard McCabe (Edgar), and Toby Stephens (Edmond).
While Kenneth Branagh played the villainous brother in the Gielgud set, he is assigned the Fool in this production with David Burke (Kent) and Matthew Morgan (Oswald).
The reading in the Caedmon recording is in the grand manner, more poetical than is the most recent; but this Naxos effort seems to move faster, is more dramatic (as should be no surprise) in our sense of the word in that it is more realistic, more "modern" sounding. But I would not dismiss the older set by any means.
I found Scofield less earth-shaking in this production, sounding a little more reasonable and vulnerable than in the earlier one--but after 36 years and under a new director (Howard Sackler in 1965, John Tydeman here), an actor must rethink the role. What I do appreciate is that every word in the storm scene is spoken clearly and not drowned out by the sound effects.
All Drama departments should own both Scofield versions. This Naxos release is available on tape (NA324414) and CD (NA324412). It is also the best buy since Naxos is the supreme budget label.

This review is not of King Lear itself (one of my two favorite Shakespeare plays, with the other being Othello), but rather on this edition of Lear (ISBN: 9781411400795), which was edited by Andrew Hadfield and David Scott Kastan.

I read a lot of heavily annotated books, and I have to say that the Barnes & Noble Shakespeare editions have one of the best book designs I've ever encountered. The various references materials (footnotes and definitions for archaic words) appear in a manner that makes the text very easy to follow.

The scholarship is also top-notch. The annotations give you enough to make things clear without insulting your intelligence, or without overburdening you with unnecessary detail. The essays are also interesting and informative.

I've been avoiding Shakespeare ever since high school, which was many years ago. Now that I'm reading him again, I'm glad I'm in such good hands. It is making the experience a joy, rather than a chore.

My compliments to the editors and the book designer. They have done a superior job of making this difficult text accessible to the modern reader. Highly recommended.

King Lear`s fatality cannot be invocated as a divine curse. When Lear renounces to be at charge of his kingdom wrought with the ferocity of his soldiers and irrigated with the blood of his troops, begins his own fall, because you cannot be king without a kingdom.

The nature denied Lear the possibility of a male inheritor, so under the perspective of his imminent death, decides to bet in the unpredictable roulette of the emotions a test of love to find out which one of his daughters loves him more.

Betrayal and deception because his favourite daughter replies him with flippancy and without any signal of sincere gratitude. This fact will untie his repressed anger, proceeding to disinherit her. This is the decisive spark that will ignite the stage in the primary plot.

In the secondary but no least important dramatic tie, Gloucester will believe in Edmund's eloquence and juridical device supported by a false letter in which Edgar claims unsaid ambitions. Gloucester will lose himself at the moment he has preferred to believe his illegitimate son instead his legitimate Edgar.

Betrayal and distrust; jealous and rivalries; perversion and immorality will convey to all these personages into a fatidic whirlwind of predictable consequences.

All tragedy traduces and reaffirms the aspiration of the human being to enhance himself through an act of unexpected valour, to acquire a new level of his grandness in front of the obstacles, the unknown that finds in the world as well as the society of his time. Andre Bonnard

One of the most important works of this colossus of the dramaturgy. A must - read.

I came to Lear later than I came to Hamlet. And yet it too seemed to me to rage in connection with my own father's light. It too seemed to interpret and be interpreted by him. Lear in his great pain driven to madness by grief was like my father a great king wounded into screaming by life. The Lear story , the three daughters , ungrateful Goneril and Regan, and lovely Cordelia true to her troth , loving with the mean and proportion a daughter's love required- that story and the father's dispossession and madness and grief and reconnection with the loving daughter and her death and his grief breaking into madness- that story the story of the tragedy itself- as too the secondary plot with there too a father misapprehending the virtue of one child, and being deceived by another- that plot and the heart of the Lear story did not speak to me at the time. No , just Lear poor bare forked unencumbered man himself this spoke to me .For again in the great language of grief and madness came those metaphors which likened themselves to the kind of thing we heard every night from my father around the kitchen table. So I did not then read Lear truly and wholly, but rather took for myself some part of it which connected with my life.

A great work of art is not simply all the readings made of it, and not even all the misreadings made of it, but all the truth it reveals and inspires in us. Again it told my father's story and suggested that story greater than any Literature could perhaps be Literature one day.

And this without Cordelia's death and without ' Never, never, never , never, never. Why should a horse a rat have life and her no breath at all? With only a different cry and one for us anyway more painful still ' No, a thousand times no '

'King Lear' is probably one of my favourite Shakespeare plays and is currently the one most studied at A-Levels. It is famed for it's depiction of the infirmity of old age and complex family politics. In some respects I think it'd be rather presumptuous of me to attempt to review Shakespeare. Someone so well known and influential wouldn't benefit from my opinions on their work, plus there are more scholarly and concise reviews out there. But I can comment on these Arden versions. Of all the Shakespeare I've read I've always found the Arden copies to be well laid out and to have excellent commentary and notes on the text. They really add to your understanding of Shakespeares outstanding plays and introduce you to the depth in his work. They have superb paper quality and are bound well, withstanding repeated readings and intensive study. For your collection of Shakespeare you can't do much better than Arden publications, some are quite hard to get hold of but it's worth the effort.

Feel free to check out my blog which can be found on my profile page.

Spoilers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
King Lear by William Shakespeare is a wonderful play for students to read and analyze because of the strong characters, the character relationships and side plots, and it keeps you guessing. King Lear is definitely known for its strength in characters. To begin, our list of strong characters starts with Edgar, son of Gloucester. He is very loyal to his father and King Lear while he also punishes his brother for treason against his father. Cordelia also keeps going on strong as the plot unfolds because she is also loyal to her father by forgiving him and giving him shelter. Then, the Duke of Albany, although you don’t see him much, stands his ground throughout the story. He not only stood up to his wife for King Lear, but he also fights France to protect his country (even though King Lear is with the French). As you can see, many strong characters are present in the play King Lear.

Character relationships and side plots are a very interesting part in this play. Regan, Goneril, and Edmund form a love triangle that has a major effect on the plot and ending because (of course) they cause many to die including themselves. And, they actually caused most of the tragedy at the end. Another example of the many side plots in this play is Edmund and his father Gloucester. Edmund tries desperately to overthrow his father from power, and eventually succeeds, but insures both of their deaths. Then, he causes Regan and Goneril to win the war against France. Also, Gloucester and his other son, Edgar, keep a heartwarming relationship as Edgar defends him from death and insanity. So, the side plots and character relationships really keep the story from going downhill.

King Lear also keeps you guessing most of the time. First of all, if you are new to Shakespeare there are so many possibilities because you have no idea what to expect, and your friends can tell you their different opinions about the play. Also, the action in King Lear is centered near the end, so it is hard to predict events. For example, some people turned good after evil doings or bad people did unimaginable deeds. At the same time, the end is so unpredictable because of the large quantity of deaths and other action, which can be confusing. In conclusion, King Lear by William Shakespeare is full of strong characters, character relationships and side plots, and it also keeps you guessing, which makes it a great tragic play for readers.

To say that this is Shakespeare, 'King Lear' is surprisingly easy to read. This is in no way to disparage any of his other work but personally I found this quite readable. The story concerns King Lear, a doddery old and increasingly insane old man. Giving his land out to his daughters he decides who should have the best land by how much they say that they love him. Whilst conniving Goneril and Regan win good shares, the youngest and more genuine Cordelia states her love to be immeasurable and is so cast off with nothing. All this plays in the background with Edgar and Edmund, the two entirely different sons of another royal cast-off, Gloucester.
The primary theme is obviously family although despite the tragic consequences of the final act the hope of redemption is palpable throughout. As a production 'King Lear' is even better though, especially in the storm scene that echoes the inner turmoil of Lear's mind. Another point of interest is that the play was written coinciding with the ageing Elizabeth I of England who without an heir was worrying the country over what would become of them when she died.
Although the best thing about this is that you don't need to have a great knowledge of the contextual influences to enjoy this, because there's a whole host of characters to boo and hiss at so that any preconceptions about possibly boring political intrigue are quickly dispersed. The play really comes into the light though in its final act, which is thoroughly enjoyable and brilliantly tragic. On a personal level, this is my favourite Shakespeare play.

Lear starts his tragedy with a lie. He has divided his kingdom into one larger and two smaller equal parts and promises to give the larger part to that of his daughters who vows the strongest love for him. Yet after Goneril speaks he immediately awards her one of the smaller parts, instead of listening to her sisters and then deciding the fate of the largest bounty. He thus negates his word and turns the auction into a formality for his pre-arranged plan of giving Cordelia the largest part and her sisters the two smaller parts. The whole scene is crass and the king is doubly crass (once for the auction, once more for the lie). He gives his word on the auction on line 52, breaks it on line 69 and forgets about his lie on line 193 where he rages at Kent for urging him to renege on his allegedly never broken word.

Lear starts his tragedy a crazy man. Cordelia's attempt at expressing that she "obeys, loves and most honors" the king only earns her being disowned half a page later. This precipitous fall from being the favorite daughter slated to receive the largest part of the kingdom to the one who "better ... hadst not been born" is incredible.

Most of all, this is a tragedy of detachment. Lear and Cornwall obviously do not have a relationship with their children and know nothing about their children's true feelings for them. Lear does not hear Cordelia and Gloucester does not try to hear Edgar out. Both have to face devastating atrocities before they see their children for who they are. "To willful men the injuries that they themselves procure must be their schoolmasters". They both suffer when they feel unloved by their offspring, they both die before they can enjoy their children's love. The suffering of the two old men is unrelenting, and in this sense "Lear" is as heartbreaking as "Macbeth" is macabre and "Othello" is insidious.

The balance of power, 4:4 (Cordelia, Fool, Kent and Edgar against Gonereil, Reagan, Edmund and Cornwall, with Lear and Glocester in the middle and Albany largely on the fence), is tilted towards the higher ranked evil four. In a game of chess, the former four would have been pawns, knights and bishops and the latter queens and rooks. In the end, Kent and Edgar, a knight and a pawn, save the day.

And yet, the end of the play offers no redemption. The two old men are dead. All those devoted to them are either dead or despondent. The Fool, his spirit giving out as he urged Lear to go back to the two evil daughters and ask their blessing, disappears from the play without a grace. Kent is preparing to follow Lear into the world of shadows. Cordelia is murdered and Edgar predicts an uninspiring future for himself and the young that remain. There is no consolation for dead or living.

The new Folger King Lear paperback is a wonderful edition to read and put a decade of musing in order. After not reading the play for a number of years, perhaps ten or more, I bought the 5 1/2" by 8 3/8" paperback to replace my own drifting thoughts with the authors words.

There is a generous serving of orthodox commentary in the Folger edition that I found very helpful, but I had seen something rather different from my very first encounter. On my first reading, more than three decades ago, I saw the possibility that King Lear was an allegory of the "Great Work of Alchemy" namely the making of the Philosophers' Stone.

To make the Stone, alchemists start with something they call the Prime Matter and they subject it to three different rather special substances; philosophic mercury, philosophic salt, and philosophic sulfur. The alchemy operations are sometimes harmonious and sometimes violent and when they are completed, the Prime Matter has become the Philosophers' Stone.

I have always thought of King Lear as the Prime matter, and of course his three daughters, who are sometimes harmonious and sometimes violent even unto death, as the three philosophic substances. The actions in different scenes are really allegorical descriptions of alchemy operations. Recall, Trituration, the process of grinding things together. Surely in the first act, Goneril and her sister Regan grind themselves together pursuing their own greed at the expense of their father's foolish whim to hear their affection competitively stated.

When alchemists talk about a "Pelican" they are talking about a recycling distilling apparatus. The apparatus looks a bit like a pelican scratching its own skin near its heart. On line 81, of Act3.SC.4, Lear likens himself to a pelican with daughters. Then on page 144, we are given Conrad Lycoshenes' 1557 drawing of a phoenix that has assumed the posture of the alchemic pelican. The phoenix bird has scratched its own chest the same way an alchemists' pelican would. Note the three chicks at its feet. One of the chicks, Cordelia, is not as eager to feed as the other two.

In King Lear, Shakespeare uses the term "Philosopher" the way the old alchemists did. Alchemists, in Shakespeare's time referred to themselves, and were called, Philosophers. On line 162 of ACT 3.SC.4, Lear refers to Edgar, who is calling himself "Poor Tom" as "this philosopher". I doubt that Shakespeare was as innocent of the workings and vocabulary of alchemy as we are today.

The Folger Library has given us a very fine new printing of King Lear, but before reading it, may I suggest that you stop and recall what you can of mediaeval alchemy. There are many alarming similarities to be seen.

"Nothing will come of nothing" the fatal line Lear utters to Cordelia sums up the entire play. The wizened king believes he is urging Cordelia not to refrain from expressing her love for him when in fact he is unwittingly prompting her to use the same insincere flattery as her sisters. When Cordelia refuses to acquiesce to Lear's wishes, he banishes her from the kingdom and divides it among her nefarious sisters Goneril and Reagan. In doing this Lear accepts their empty flattery instead of Cordelia's austere profession of paternal love. Goneril and Reagan quickly betray Lear and then turn against each other. Thus Lear's preference for empty flattery (nothing) destroys his authority and embroils his kingdom in civil strife (generates nothing).
This theme runs like a thread through other parts of the play. Gloucester's blindness toward the nature of his sons results in his literal blindness later in the play. Metaphorical blindness generates physical blindness (nothing comes of nothing). Similarly, after Edgar is banished he avoids further harm by shedding his identity and disguising himself as a vagrant. In the new order of things eliminating one's status results in no harm (another version of nothing coming from nothing).
The motif of nothing coming from nothing has psychological and political ramifications for the play. From a psychological point of view Lear fails to realize that the type of adulating love he wants from Cordelia no longer exists because Cordelia is no longer a child. Her refusal to flatter Lear is, in a sense, an act of adolescent rebellion. Lear's failure to recognize the fact that Cordelia still loves him but not with the totality of a child proves to be his undoing. From a political point of view the fact that Lear divides his kingdom on the basis of protocol (who is the most flattering) instead of reality (whose words can he really trust) also proves to be his undoing. The fact that Lear sees what he wants to see instead of what he should see is the fulcrum of destruction throughout the play.
It is interesting to note that "King Lear" was staged barely one generation after England endured a bitter war of succession (The War of the Roses). The sight of Lear proclaiming his intention to divide his kingdom must have shocked contemporary audiences in the same manner that a play about appeasing fascists might disturb us today.

King Lear is perhaps Shakespeare's most psychologically dark tragedy, though many may argue for Macbeth. The central theme is that of the family and the emotional and physical exile that can be brought about for simple material gain. The naive and pitiable Lear with his Cinderella-esque children, Goneril, Regan and Cordelia present all that is right and wrong with a father's relationship with his children. From his opening gambit:
"What will thoust say to gain
A third more opulent than thine sisters?"
We see exactly why the terrible tragedy must unfold. The side plot between Edmund and Edgar, the donning of the garb of the madman whilst Lear descends in to madness mirrored by his dying Fool is one of humanity's greatest literary tragedies. Whilst the 'baddies' lose in the end, there is no victory, only self-realisation and, ultimately, death. Lear's supporting cast of characters can only dance to the tune he sets in slow, unalterable motion, and there can be no silver lining at the end. Only a deep and terrible understanding of the destruction of the human psyche.
'Lear' drives home the failings of the human soul but ensures that inner understanding and remorse is attainable at a great price. It is Shakespeare's finest tragedy.

Like "The Comedy of Errors," "Hamlet," and "Richard III," this is a phenomenal masterpiece beyond expectations. Goneril, Regan, Cornwall, and Edmund are the most frightening and demonic characters in Shakespeare's writing. (Only his King Richard III compares). I can not overemphasize Shakespeare's mastery of writing in how he gradually unfolds the evil of these characters. While we may not know what to think of them at first, we soon learn that they would do Satan proud. Lear is handled well. First we don't know what to think of him, but then we are moved into VERY DEEP AND INTENSE pity for him. Cordelia, Kent, and Edgar are three of the most Christ like characters in Shakespeare's writings. The virtuous Albany also displays Shakespeare's best skills. First we hardly see him, but other characters express Albany's contempt for the diabolical Cornwall several times. In 4.2, his fury at his demonic wife shows us that he is planning a bold countermove. By 5.3, Albany actually takes on all 3 of the remaining monstrously evil characters. Shakespeare also offers us powerful dramatic irony with the fool. He also offers us powerful (and very terrifying) images. There are also several moving passages in this play. (Especially Edgar's soliloquy 3.6.111-125). Somehow, Shakespeare even managed to squeeze some welcome comical touches in.

Looking at the bare plot framework of 'King Lear' one sees a fairly simple tale with many of the qualities of a venerable old folk or fairy tale: the vain old king/patriarch dividing his kingdom, seeking flattery and eloquent proclamations of love from his daughters, the two villainous scheming daughters Goneril and Regan, pitted against the honest, faithful and loving daughter, Cordelia. The universality of legend and myth is immanent in the structure of the story and most of the characters (unlike Hamlet) have little complexity beyond their measure of virtuous or villainous qualities.

However, Shakespeare uses this conventional tale to support ruminations upon the nature of the universe, justice and how where in the spectrum of ultimate order or random chaos the mass of humanity falls. As in most of his plays, the author's own viewpoint is indeterminate. Shakespeare is everywhere and nowhere in his plays. In 'King Lear' Gloucester claims, "As flies to wanton boys are we to th' gods; They kill us for their sport' while his legitimate son Edgar, near the end of the play after the death of his father, states, "the gods are just, and of our pleasant vices make instruments to plague us.' The gods are cruel in both characterizations; the difference is that in one the fortunes of humanity are purely random and chaotic and in the other there is an ultimate order of cosmic justice. The fates of the characters can bear out both interpretations.

Among many other issues, 'King Lear' examines the institutions of state and family in an ancient world. Lear is a vain, foolish old man gullible to praise and flattery who happens to be a king. He is the patriarch of his family as well as his country although his power is not as secure as he would like to believe, especially as he sincerely believes that he can retain the trappings of authority even after divesting himself of his kingdom to his vile daughters. Only by losing his power and being turned out in a storm can he hope to lose his mind and regain his humanity. In his rootlessness he is fortunate to have the loyalty of his wise Fool who, like Shakespeare's other wise fool in 'Twelfth Night,' can exercise the liberty of speaking truth to power beneath the shield of wit and the protective status of fool. Also joining him on the heath is Kent, the man who jumped to the defense of Lear's hones, loving daughter Cordelia and was exiled for speaking truth, now in disguise as a beggar.

'King Lear' has a parallel secondary plot involving another vain, foolish old man, Gloucester, who has bought into the lies and schemes of his bastard son Edmund and turned out his legitimate son Edgar. Being blinded, Gloucester has been given the gift of an opportunity to gain spiritual insight with the aid of Edgar, also disguised as a beggar.

Regardless of the author Shakespeare's world view, there were prevailing beliefs in the Elizabethan world regarding a chain of being, a macrocosm and a microcosm of order, and mixtures of elements and humors that were evident in all humanity. This view was put forth most succinctly in E.M.W. Tillyard's brief book 'The Elizabethan World Picture.' Viewed through the prism of such an order, one can see the characters of 'King Lear' operating within such a universe. King Lear sees the madman Tom o' Bedlam (really Edgar in disguise) as 'unaccommodated man,' the thing itself. By stripping himself naked, Lear is removing the facades of royal ceremony and returning to commonality and union with the mass of humanity.

One of the qualities of Shakespeare's genius (and one of the primary reasons why his work endures and his plays continue to be performed, adapted and studied) is his 'god's-eye' view of humanity. Lear is a foolish old man. One can step back and judge him and say the old fool got what he deserved. Indeed, there are really few redeeming qualities in this pompous, lost monarch. His claim that he was more 'sinned against than sinning' rings hollow and reeks of a man still clinging to his bruised ego. However, once he is stripped, accommodated, redeemed and restored to receptivity of Cordelia's unconditional love one feels a heart-wrenching poignancy of the brevity of joy before the savage plotters execute Cordelia, with the inevitable and literal breaking of Lear's heart. The man desperately seeking life in his daughter's corpse elicits tears of pity and yet there is a justice in the sense that Lear did finally evolve into a recognition of love and acquire the sincere ability to receive it.

It is a cliché to state that Shakespeare possesses an eternal universality. It is also a cliché, though no less true, to state that his ability to analyze and dissect humanity and show us to ourselves in a vast global mirror that transcends 400 years and barriers of centuries of evolution of culture and language to reach out to us with familiarity, recognition and wisdom, never with more heart-piercing clarity than in 'King Lear'.

When rating Shakespeare, I always rate his works as compared to other Shakespearean works; otherwise, the consistently high marks wouldn't be very informative. For instance, if this were to be rated against the general run of literature extant, it would certainly rate five stars. Even by the standard I'm using, it's close.
Like "Hamlet", this is a tragedy that still manages to have some very funny lines; as in "Hamlet", this is generally due to characters either pretending to be crazy, or truly being crazy, so it's something of a dark humor, but humorous it still is. Lear's jester has some great lines doing what only a jester could get away with (and what the reader wants to do): telling the King that he's an idiot when he's done something ignorant beyond belief. Edgar, son of Gloucester, banished by his father for supposed treason, plays the part of a mad beggar to save his life, and when Lear, honestly crazy from grief, meets up with him, their conversations rival anything in Hamlet for manic nonsense that still manages to make a certain warped and poigniant sense.
It's a shame that the language has changed so much since Shakespeare's time, so that the masses are unable to enjoy and appreciate his wit; his plays were not written to be enjoyed only by the literati; they were intended to entertain and, yes, enlighten the masses as well as the educated; his plots seem to be right in line with either modern romantic comedies (in his comedies) or modern soap operas (in his tragedies). Modern audiences would love him, if only they could understand him; unfortunately, when one "modernizes" the language in a Shakespearean play, what one is left with is no longer Shakespeare, but simply a modern adaptation. Which, if done well, is not without value, but is still far short of the original.

After you begin to read a few of Shakespeare's plays in their original language you begin to develop an understanding of the structure of the language and the expressions used in that time. The trick I believe is to persevere; like any good thing, once you have mastered it, you begin to feel a sense of accomplishment. This greatly enhances your enjoyment of the plays.
King Lear is a play about honoring one's parents, a very relevant lesson for those of us in the modern world. As with many of Shakespeare's other plays, the language may be old but the lessons are still as relevant as ever. Lear, the King of England gives his blessing and lands to two of his daughters based on their outward show of affection for him, while neglecting his third; Cordelia, because she would rather show her love than make an outward display " my love's more richer than my tongue". It turns out that her two daughters deeds are contrary to their words and the rest of the play deals with Lear almost going mad at the ingratitude and lack of respect shown to him by his two daughters.
There is another subplot with the earl of Gloucester being deceived by his illegitimate son into wanting to kill his other son, Edgar. The story unfolds with two of these men, Lear and Gloucester being mistreated by their children who outwardly show love but inwardly have cold and calculating hearts. As with other tragedies, there must be deaths and disappointment, and King Lear is full of them. Unlike Othello however, King Lear does not have a very depressing ending and there is a feeling that everything will be alright, life goes on in other words.
I have tried to outline very briefly what this play is about and hopefully have shown a little of what is inside this very rich play. I would recommend King Lear to anyone wanting to read Shakespeare, I would also recommend you read it in the original language because even though it may be more difficult to comprehend, the language is richer and you will be reading Shakespeare and not some modern editor's idea of him.

This is a great book (as are all of the "The Modern Shakespeare" books) for making Shakespeare accessible to anyone. Although I don't personally find the shakespearean language very difficult, the modern translations are able to give a much better understanding of the nuances in the language. The editor's notes are also very helpful for understanding context and references which wouldn't be understandable to a modern day reader. There are some small typos in the book, but for it's value and what it provides they are easy enough to ignore. The kindle versions are very well laid out and easy to use, with the original passage in normal type followed by the modern translation in italics under it (along with the editor's notes). For anyone looking to dive into the wonderful world of Shakespeare without worrying about it's (somewhat over-exaggerated) difficulty, this is a great place to start!

I resent Shakespheare less now that I can read him in modern language. I wish I had known about parallel texts in college; I would have made a better grade and wouldn't have to struggle with the footnotes trying to understand the Elizabethan language, which always gives me a headache. Even the productions of the plays get on my nerves; a lot of mouths with British accents going a mile a minute about I don't know what. Shakespheare is very talky. I simply walked out on one of Kenneth Branaugh's films of Shakespheare.
But desiring to become more cultured, I have always wanted to "conquer" Shakespheare, not so much because I liked him but because he was important. This version of King Lear is quite understandable in the modern language and I even read the original text to become more familiar with the older language. After a couple reads I had the plot and characters down and the book is helpful with its suggestions of where the characters are going, or what they're holding, or how they are saying a certain thing, or what letter they are refering to, which isn't listed in the original and causes you to miss the meaning.
As for the play itself, King Lear is a vain old man who falls for the flattery of two of his daughters Regan and Goneril, who prove false and he scorns and disinherits the third daughter, Cordelia, who will not flatter him, but only says that taking care of him and honoring him is merely her duty. Appearances are not what they seem; who acts noble is often scorned for being honest and truthful and those who are ignoble may act noble at times but ultimately are not. Even the king is not noble in his wanting to be flattered while his fool says many wise things about the king being a fool.
All of nature is in discord as King Lear descends from his vaunted heights to become a homeless man thrown out into a terrible storm by his false daughters, Regan and Goneril, who unnaturally betray their progenitor and benefactor once he has given away his inheritance. The play gives insight into how children may act when it comes time to receive their inheritance. And in the case of Generil, there is some gender bending, in which she seems to be more strong and aggressive than her husband, Albany, who sees her husband as a prig and a wimp. Or you could say that this is just traditional female conniving in case of Regan and Goneril.
There is a subplot that has similar themes regarding which child is true or false to their father. The Earl of Gloucester has two sons one the "bastard" Edmund who tries to usurp the inheritance of the legitimate son Edgar. Edmund acts as if Edgar is going to betray Gloucester and tells his father so, but actually Edmund is the one who will betray them both and will attempt to marry either Regan or Goneril who are already married to secure his pre-eminence of position. As usual in Shakespheare, the "bastard" is evil and ignoble whose pretense of nobility is a sham. Edgar goes in disguise as a lowly beggar who ultimately proves that he is noble even though he is not well-dressed.
Another character, the earl of Kent, also goes in disguise as a lowly servant and proves true to King Lear, even though Lear banished him for siding with the noble daughter Cordelia.
Oswald is an unfaithful servant to the king and makes an allegance with the false daughters to better his position.
Shakespheare moralistically explores noble virtues and he seems old-fashioned since our modern plays are much more morally ambivalent-- because we're immoral modern degenerates, I guess.

The rating of four stars is for the edition (R.A. Foakes's); the play is one of the greatest tragedies ever written, and of course deserves at least five stars.
It is not easy to find a a truly satisfactory edition of this play. An advantage of R.A. Foakes's is that he offers us a "conflated" text, i.e. one that aims to reconstruct something like what Shakespeare originally wrote by taking elements from the best two early printings rather than giving us those separately or by settling for the one rather than the other. I don't think, though, that Foakes's reconstruction is nearly as convincing as that of earlier editors who presented conflated texts. I am often unhappy about his glosses, too, and about his rather "trendy" introduction. Even so, the introduction and the notes do give us most of what we need, so long as we approach this material with independence of mind.
The PLAY is the thing, and whichever text we read it in (even, for example, in a text based just on that in the Folio), it is a great and moving work. Lear is an ageing king (about 80+), whose life has been sheltered and pampered. Although this equips him badly for "real" life, he is not intrinsically the evil tyrant that much current criticism tends to suggest - even his authoritarianism seems a matter of habit rather than anything else. At the beginning of the play he foolishly decides that he will give each of his three daughters a part of his kingdom. His intention had been to give the youngest daughter, Cordelia, with whom he planned to spend his "retirement", the biggest portion. However, rather than simply proceeding with his plan, he asks his daughters to declare the degree of their love for him, and this is where tangible trouble starts.
Goneril and Regan, both flatterers who seek their own interest at all times, butter him up, but Cordelia, who is honest, offends Lear's ego by refusing to follow her sisters' phoney example. He then offers the two eldest daughters 50% each, and disinherits Cordelia. Soon Goneril and Regan, contrary to what had been arranged, refuse to give him hospitality, and plan his death. Cordelia, though badly treated by him, tries to rescue her father, and the two are reconciled in a most moving scene, but she is killed and carried onto the stage in an immensely painful way by Lear, whose sanity had been temporarily destroyed by his daughters' and his own behaviour but who paradoxically gains new insight into life as a result of everything he experiences during the course of his suffering.
His story is paralleled by that of the Earl of Gloucester, who similarly wrongly prefers a bad child to one who is good, yet is treated well by the good child, Edgar, who like Cordelia shows that love consists of forgiveness and generosity rather than anything else. Just as Lear learned wisdom through madness, Gloucester acquires it after he has been blinded by some of the most evil people in the play.
It is in many ways a "bleak" play, not giving us any reason to hope that there is a God who looks after us in this life or one hereafter, and showing plenty of evil in humankind - amongst both women and men - but which also leaves no doubt as to what it means to be good, and provides consolation by showing us how good, and love, can endure even in the face of great provocation and suffering. - Joost Daalder

Before this year, I hated shakespeare. However, this play is willing to give the nonbelievers a run for their money.

The play begins with the old King Lear dividing up his kingdom between his three daughters. However, angered by the daughter that truly loves him, he expels her and gives all the land to the other two sisters.

The play is driven by these two sisters actions to slowly erode Lear of all his power. Shakespeare does a great job of developing Lear who initially appears to be a self centered snot and eventually becomes a character that all can sympathize with. He like many of the characters in this play, are given depe emotions and all appear realistic.

A secondary plot acts as a foil to the main action as the character of Gloucester is led to believe that one of his sons is secretly acting to betray him. This back story complements the main story nicely and is told well.

Combined, the two plots make a remarkable story. While it is often hard to follow if you aren't used to the older English, it is still worth a read. I'd recommend it to anyone alongside Macbeth.

One of literature's classic dysfunctional families shows itself in <i>King Lear</i> by William Shakespeare. King Lear implicity trusts his three daughters, Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia, but when the third wishes to marry for love rather than money, he banishes her. The two elder ones never felt Lear as a father; they simply did his bidding in an attempt to win his favor to get the kingdom upon his death. Cordelia, on the other hand, always cared for him, but tried to be honest, doing what she felt was right. As Lear realizes this through one betrayal after another, he loses his kingdom -- and what's more, his sanity...
The New Folger Library edition has to be among the best representations of Shakespeare I've seen. The text is printed as it should be on the right page of each two-page set, while footnotes, translations, and explanations are on the left page. Also, many drawings and illustrations from other period books help the reader to understand exactly what is meant with each word and hidden between each line.

I love the story of King Lear. The theme of the play is filial ingratitude, and this is portrayed as two parallel stories. The play is actually a parable. It is also a great acting play, and though it's difficult to stage, an actor only in the prime of his career is considered equal to the task of portraying Lear. Lear is a very complex part. He is obstinate, arrogant and hot-tempered at first. When his favourite daughter refuses to treat him in the way he thinks he should be treated he casts her off, and then Lear suffers physical and emotional suffering. He begins a descent into madness. Then from this pit he rediscovers love and tenderness when he is finally reunited with his favourite daughter. So many emotions to portray! No wonder it takes such skill to play this part! Truly a masterpiece!

This star-rating system has one important flaw: you have to rank books only in relation to its peers, its genre. So you must put five stars in a great light-humor book, as compared to other ones of those. Well, I am giving this book four stars in relation to other Shakespeare's works and similar great books.
Of course, it's all in the writing. Shakespeare has this genius to come up with magnificent, superb sentences as well as wise utterings even if the plot is not that good.
This is the case with Lear. I would read it again only to recreate the pleasure of simply reading it, but quite frankly the story is very strange. It is hard to call it a tragedy when you foolishly bring it about on yourself. Here, Lear stupidly and unnecessarily divides his kingdom among his three daughters, at least two of them spectacularly treacherous and mean, and then behaves exactly in the way that will make them mad and give them an excuse to dispose of him. What follows is, of course, a mess, with people showing their worst, except for poor Edgar, who suffers a lot while being innocent.
Don't get me wrong: the play is excellent and the literary quality of Shakespeare is well beyond praise. If you have never read him, do it and you'll see that people do not praise him only because everybody else does, but because he was truly good.
The plot is well known: Lear divides the kingdom, then puts up a stupid contest to see which one of his daughters expresses more love for him, and when Cordelia refuses to play the game, a set of horrible treasons and violent acts begins, until in the end bad guys die and good guys get some prize, at a terrible cost.
As a reading experience, it's one of the strongest you may find, and the plot is just an excuse for great writing.

Now I wonder if plays count as books, but that is the beauty of the Bard. He has an all-encompassing reach for both the English and Theater worlds with influences on everything in between. There is so much going on that there is no way for me to cover it all in a little 300 or so word blurb but I shall try my best.

I have read this one twice for school and both times I was struck with how powerful it was. It deals with love and all of it's forms, with the fears of old age, with the battle for power everything needed to create an amazing story. Written toward the end of his life, I believe that a lot of Lear is Shakespeare's own personal fear and struggle of growing old and losing the respect that he feels he deserves. Lear is one of the most complex characters simply because of how dynamic he is. He begins Act 1 as a spoiled man who doesn't know himself, who is not wise enough to know what love and devotion really are. From there he descends into madness until finally being able to see the truth only in time to die himself. (Sorry if I spoiled but it's a Shakespearean tragedy, you know that everyone is going to die.)

I could go on about Regan and Goneril as the first evil (step)sisters that I have come across - they certainly make Anastasia and Drisella look like perfect angels. Or about Edmund a truly evil character rarely to be rivaled in literature. Shakespeare manages to capture human nature in all of its interesting shades so wonderfully that it is impossible to do him justice.

Read (or if possible watch) this wonder of Shakespeare, it will leave you satisfied and, hopefully, thinking.

The Folger edition is wonderful because of the notes on the sides and the fact that it can be one of the most complete plays out there.

When I needed to re-read Hamlet after many years of not having done so, I turned to the The Modern Shakespeare's edition of Hamlet. It isn't the best: the No Fear edition of By William Shakespeare: Hamlet (No Fear Shakespeare) is better, of course, as is Folger's edition of Hamlet ( Folger Library Shakespeare). However, for $2.99 and for the convenience of being able to read Hamlet on my Kindle, where I can make electronic notes and highlight the text with ease, the Modern Shakespeare's edition is hard to beat.

The first part of this edition has Shakespeare's original alternating with a modern translation. The second part consists of the modern language only for those who want just that. Providing that choice makes this a capital edition for tech-savvy students who'd rather not be bothered with a paper edition.

So I'm not exactly a Shakespeare scholar, but I still loved this tragedy. I think it's one of the best one, and it's a pity so few are put on live action show (the recent Hamlet,Henry V,Richard III,Midsummer Night's Dream, and other movies were great!). Unfortunately, some complain that it is not an official "tragedy" because, according to A.C. Bradley, who's supposed to be some real genius, requires that Fate have little to do with any good tragedy...Yet King Lear DOES include Fate (cf. Gloucester's laments about the gods playing with human lives). So much of it that I think it's one of the main themes of the play. Unlike Bradley, I think this inevitability only INTENSES the depressing mood of the play, and to people suffering from chronic depression (like myself), the play really speaks out. Generational gaps and treatment of seniors are very relevant to our society, yet the question of Fate and the great tragedy that life can sometimes end up to be cannot be ignored in this one of Shakespeare's greatest plays. I mean, it IS a tragedy right?

King Lear itself truly needs no comment; it is, simply put, the single greatest work of the single most important writer in world history. What does need comment, however, is the edition published by Pelican Shakespeare. Pelican's King Lear is unquestionably the best edition that one can use to tackle this challenging yet incredible work of drama. The notes are clear, yet not overpowering. Unlike other editions, who force definitions and explanations at the reader, The Pelican Shakespeare subtly signals when an explanation is offered with margin markers, yet does not interrupt the readers flow while reading. In addition, the introductory and concluding essays an explanations further relate and make accessible this timeless play.

With many people living much longer than they did in Shakespeare's time
and their children putting them in ratty nursing homes
where they are usually or even generally treated badly
and given the minimum of nursing care... going there
mainly to die, this play has something to say to modern man.
We like his daughters too often betray our patents and
they so often mistake our good intentions.
Is madness the cost of old age? Are greed and
envy any less despicable in modern children than
they were in the children of kings?
We all live better than the kings of the past in America today,
but treat our elderly worse than even the worst impoverished of Shakespeare's time.
And we still have homeless mad people ( like Edgar pretends to be)
on our streets and back roads. We haven't learned any lessons from our literature.

I love King Lear and I love Paul Scofield, who voices Lear in this production. I bet it was a dynamite version to see live. But this audio recording suffers from terrible sound mixing. Some people have used the phrase "voices dropping out" to describe the problem, but I'd say simply that they did too little post-production mixing. The volumes are wildly divergent. This is most audible when someone speaks an aside--if you turn the volume up enough to hear this line, the next line spoken at regular volume will rattle your speakers (and eardrums). But it's a problem even in scenes with actors of different vocal styles--some people are way too loud and others very hard to hear. To give this complaint some context, I've never reviewed anything negatively on the store before. But this is a production problem--like getting a book printed on cheap paper--not just a matter of taste. They should have fixed this (and still could if they wanted to), and it really deserves a negative rating to warn people off of it.

William Shakespeare's play "King Lear" is a story that tells us to beware of flatterers. The title character King Lear disinherits his favorite daughter after she fails to flatter him when he asks each of his daughters how much they love him. King Lear is a foolish king who just goes with his first impressions and doesn't look deeper into people's words. The play takes place in England before the time of Merlin. The time period of the setting however is irrelevant to the play and the play could take place in any time period. King Lear is not an actual historical king, he is rather a king of British legend.

The play teaches parents to beware children who love them superficially. Flatterers fool those who love to be flattered.

The character King Lear is according to what I have heard, a rather difficult and demanding character to play for an actor. The Folger edition of this play has lots of explanatory notes to help the reader to understand the play.

I read King Lear after a long gap since my last reading of Shakespeare--in college. It was recommended by a former professor, David Allen White, as his favorite of Shakespeare's plays. I was not disappointed and found the play to be very compelling. For a novice, the play was a quick read, probably because the action and the characters were so interesting. This is one I'll probably have to read again in order to truly grasp its meaning and beauty. Since most high school and college students don't go beyond Macbeth, Hamlet, or Romeo and Juliet, I would highly recommend King Lear as a continuation of that introduction to Shakespeare.

Years ago when my husband's father, a farmer for many years, first saw large round-style hay bales, he wept with joy because, since these new bales could not be lifted by hand, he knew farmworkers would no longer need to risk the heavy, injurious previous work of stacking and transporting their hay.

I know how he felt. It nearly brought tears to my eyes to first experience reading a No Fear Shakespeare. I cannot overstate the ease this text brings to the pleasure and excitement of a Shakespeare play. If you have wanted to read Shakespeare but found the language too archaic to understand, if you have enjoyed reading Shakespeare but not the time it took to plow through the footnotes and concordances, if you have been assigned to read Shakespeare plays for a class and want to know which edition to use, if you have always meant to read Shakespeare to find out for yourself what "all the fuss" is about - this is the version to read.

As for the play King Lear itself, it is a beautiful, painful, truthful story of a human being in all his prideful flaws, who learns to understand himself and his relations with others, even though paying the ultimate tragic price. Shakespeare's genius is telling a story that we all can relate to, and part of you will be right there on the heath in the storm raging with Lear.

From LEAR FOR REAL by Geoffrey O'Brien: "If the apparently innocuous opening lines of KING LEAR--the politely ribald chitchat as Gloucester introduces Kent to his bastard son Edmund--are already imbued with a sense of dread, it is because we know this is the last moment when all that follows might have been avoided, when some other entertainment, some comedy or court romance, could have begun: a very short breathing space before the springing of the trap."

You might also care to notice Gloucester's casual shamelessness in regard to his own sexual irresponsibility. Instead of expressing remorse for having sired a bastard child, Gloucester brags about the sexual pleasure he derived from impregnating an expendable woman.

Something tells me that Shakespeare was morally contemptuous of Gloucester. Shakespeare's line of thinking might have been: Well, if you're gonna sire a bastard child with complete peace of mind, then don't be surprised if that bastard child mistreats you with complete peace of mind. And don't be surprised if some fun-couple pokes out your eyes with complete peace of mind. I'm not saying that Gloucester deserved his fate. But he sure deserves your contempt.

Reading Shakespeare in class is drearily routine. The teacher picks on some students, they monotone through it, class is over, the students retain nothing and go read Sparknotes. Or she would rent a made-for-cable version for the class to fall asleep while appearing to watch.

Reading King Lear by yourself is hardly any easier, as almost every character is named for some English province and the sisters have male names (Regan is an American President and Goneril sounds like a Mesopotamian demon-god, so only Cordelia is recognizably female.)

Enter Pollock. His scratchy cartooons of almost Peanuts-ian simplisity succeed in getting across the basic picture: We have Fat Balding King Guy (Lear) Tall King Guy (Albany) and his Short Queen (Goneril), Short King Guy (Cornwall) and his Tall Queen (Regan), some guy in an unmistakable Clown Costume (Fool) and finally our Vampire-esque Villan (Edmund). The sisters have big lips and even bigger hair, making up for the masculine names. At times, it just looks like talking heads spouting jibberish at each other, but every production of Shakespeare is guilty of this to some extent. Besides, most students read Lear for the plot, and the handy preface explains most of that motif/characterization/deeper meaning stuff they need for the essay. Plus, which would you rather sit down with, a comic book or a study guide?

King Lear is one of the bloodiest plays in Shakespeare's body of work. And it is a harrowing play. Not just death, but cruelty and brutality reign. Lear, as father, makes an ill-conceived choice in rewarding his three daughters--Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia.

This sets in motion Lear's downward spiral and begets conspiracies, betrayals, and murder. By the play's end, several leading characters have died. And, by that time, Lear has come to understand the folly of his choices regarding his daughters. By then, too late. . . .

A powerful and dark tragedy. . . .

As in all tragedies of the author, the ending is the same. In this case, King Lear, an error of judgment, leaving his throne to two of his daughters, just the evil. The kind Cordelia is left out. The issue is why Lear makes this decision wrong and the consequences of it. Is a play about deception, ingratitude, old age. It is a tragedy. As always, the work written in a quirky, full of twists and literary citations made famous.

It's a shame Shakespeare has such a bad rap among young adults. The same people who play violent video games and listen to violent music would love this play(I know, I know, I'm stereotyping, but more young adults do this than seventy-year-olds). In King Lear, people's eyes are gouged out and other people are impaled on swords.
At the beginning, King Lear decides to step down from the throne and divide the kingdom amongst his three daughters, Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia. First, he asks each of them how much she loves him. Goneril and Regan suck up grandly to their father, but Cordelia says that her love cannot be described, and says nothing. King Lear disowns Cordelia, who then flees to the king of France, who says that, despite the fact that she is disowned, he wants to marry her.
As soon as Cordelia leaves, Goneril and Regan betray their father, who leaves, saddened that the two daughters he thought loved him turned against him.
Meanwhile, the Earl of Gloucester is also tricked by his "bad" son Edmund into thinking that his "good" son Edgar is "bad", and Gloucester tries to kill Edgar. Eventually, Edgar is the one who leads the earl after Lear's daughter gouges his eyes out.
Shakespeare is the original soap-opera writer, but usually, there is a theme or themes to his stories, in this case, don't trust heresy and flattery.
Of course, all of this results in tragedy: most the "bad guys" and the "good guys" end up dying...King Lear dies, heartbroken, after Cordelia is executed.

As far as Shakespeare's tragedies go, I have some respect for "Romeo and Juliet." I think "Timon of Athens" and "Coriolanus" are very underrated. I do not like "Othello" at all. I really like "Macbeth." And along with "Julius Caesar" and "Hamlet," I consider "King Lear" a real masterpiece.

The play starts with the aged King Lear displaying poor judgment by announcing his retirement, and leaving his power to his 2 overly ambitious daughters Goneril and Regan, while banishing is youngest daughter Cordelia (who is worthy of his love and trust). Cordelia ends up getting married to the French King, and thus becomes Queen of France. King Lear also banishes his noble servant Kent (who was also worthy of his love and trust).

In a subplot, the old and kind hearted Gloucester is upset by the king's actions, but ironically, he falls into the same pattern. He (after being deceived by Edmund) declares war on his honorable son Edgar, and puts trust in his monstrously evil son Edmund. By the end of the 1st act, the ever loyal Kent disguises himself, and finds his way back into the king's employ.

At first, Shakespeare leaves it ambiguous as to who we should like. (King Lear was not so likable, and his misuse of power didn't help.) But by the end of the 2nd act, Shakespeare allows us to see that Goneril, Cornwall, and Regan would do the devil proud. Edmund may even outdo these 3! From the end of the 2nd act, Shakespeare shifts our sympathies to Lear, and DOES NOT allow it to slack at all. (Our new sympathy for Lear will in fact intensify throughout.)

While we don't see much of Goneril's virtuous husband Albany until the 4th act, other characters speak of his contempt for Cornwall, so we can see that Shakespeare is getting a heroic role ready for him. This helps build suspense as well as the news of Cordelia's French Invasion. (To restore her father to the throne.)

Kent, Cordelia, and Edgar are quite Christlike. Kent never abandons the king; Cordelia never stopped loving her father; and Edgar continues to love his father. (Edgar's father suffers a horrible injury at the hands of Cornwall at the end of the 3rd act, and Edgar does everything humanly possible for his father.)

It is interesting that Kent and Edgar both continue to love and serve a man who had mistreated them, even to the point of wearing a disguise. Moving on, Lear is eventually reunited with Cordelia, and the scene where Cordelia forgives him is beyond beautiful.

But, Shakespeare does not stop here. Lear's 2 wicked daughters (Goneril and Regan) both want the affection of the evil Edmund, and Goneril plots to have her virtuous husband Albany killed. (Regan's husband Cornwall died at the end of the 3rd act.) To complicate matters further, Cordelia launches her invasion on behalf of her father, and while Albany shares Cordelia's goal, he also feels he has an obligation to protect Britain from invasion.

In an almost Easter fashion, Edgar reappears to challenge his wicked brother Edmund in trial by combat. (It is interesting that while Robert Powell did Jesus in "Jesus of Nazareth," he also does Edgar on an audio version of "King Lear.") But even as Albany, Edgar, and Kent gain control of the situation, Shakespeare has his arguably saddest moment waiting for us.

This play is a perfect cure for Hollywood movies that tend to glorify war. "King Lear" is arguably Shakespeare's most brutal play. But the violence is disturbing even when the virtuous characters are triumphant. The story DOES need the violence, but Shakespeare seems to know here that war and violence are disturbing, and should be portrayed so. Furthermore, the death of one's enemies, may NOT lead to a happy ending.

I was wrong. The placement of scenes depends on which version you use. There are several quartos. I was reading the First Quarto and this text is based on a later one. Original review: "Terrible text moves ""to be..""Soliloquy to wrong act and scene. Do not trust this copy."
This book is useful.

Fans of Shakespeare's original tragic satire will love this novel. The visuals Ian Pollock presents in his adaptation of the play are beautifully expressive and allow readers to feel as though they are genuinely reading the play. I would even go as far as to recommend this book for English professors looking to teach the play in class. Pollock was able to take it word for word and accurately represent all the necessary undertones that makes King Lear such a fascinating story of a failed king thought god.
Personally, I have never understood the play better than prior to reading this book. I have never seen King Lear on stage and had no point of reference for the subtle humor Shakespeare is so well known for implementing. It was a great and enjoyable read.

As a fan of Shakespeare, particularly his tragedies, I wanted to get a hold of one of his most well-known ones: King Lear. Since I adored Macbeth, Julius Caesar, and Othello, I looked forward to this one. And as soon as I finished it last night, I acknowledged that I like it, though I did have small problems with it. It seemed that the play felt fairly more slow-paced than the others. And as a Shakespearean tragedy, I knew that it wouldn't end well. Some of the tension that grew as the story progressed felt a little invisible here and there. But still, King Lear is an enthralling play, and it deserves its recognition. I would highly recommend it to every Shakespeare admirer on the planet (and to those who enjoy good theater).

Grade: 8.2 out of 10

I think I should start this off by saying that I am a huge fan of Shakespeare, his work has left a remarkable imprint on who I am as a person. That being said, I've always backed the notion that Shakespeare was first and for most intended for the stage, therefore his work totally thrives and is in it's true form. This graphic novel certainly isn't anywhere near the caliber of a whole theatrical production (obviously) but Pollock's new medium of adaptation brought me into a whole other realm of things. The colors tell a dramatic story, along with Shakespeare's text as a guide. The art style itself is captivating. Very good read, a must have for people expanding their Shakespeare collections and knowledge.

If you are looking for a good Kindle edition of Shakespeare, buy the Modern Library versions edited by Jonathan Bate and Eric Rasmussen. It includes hyperlinks with a table of contents and glossary. It also has the intro, list of characters, key facts, textual notes, and scene-by-scene analysis that are in the print version. It does not have line numbers, but the links to the glossary reduce the need for them.

When I expressed my distaste of the book, my teacher was quick to comment that my generation can't fully grasp the emotional value of the book. Frankly, I don't think that was the problem. Shakespeare is indeed a master and I, like many, am blown away by his works. His taste for language is extremely high class and I can only marvel at how well he writes. He's truly a conductor with words and if I were to rate the book simply based on the writing, I would give it a five. Sadly, the plot has a hard time keeping up with the orchestra of words. It is clear from the language that the book was meant to make the reader emotional; unfortunately, it didn't quite get there. "Break heart I prithee break." This was one of the most heart wrenching moments of the book but by the time I reached this level, I was too unsatisfied to have any feeling for the tragedy. The book simply overplayed the angst. There were numerous character deaths to the point I had to question the relevance of some of them; especially in the case of Regan and Goneril. They are first hand examples of human selfishness and greed and don't hesitate to turn against each other in the name of power. Goneril ends up killing her sister in this heated rivalry in order to gain the upper hand. However, after she kills her sister she experiences this epiphanic moment where she feels distraught for her sisters death, she follows her sister to heaven-or hell if you prefer. At this point, is when Shakespeare's concerto started to sound off beat. Frankly, the story started to lose its sense of realism. I simply could not buy that Goneril would suddenly start feeling guilty. Through out the whole story, she's so apathetic it's almost stifling and all of a sudden, she starts seeming humane? Just didn't buy that. There are a lot more examples I could use, but perhaps this was the one that irritated me the most.
The story overall was just unsatisfactory. At times it seemed idealistic and illogical. One of the things that really bugged me was the trigger of the story. The plot is set off by a ridiculous misunderstanding that I doubt any parent would make. It begins with Lear asking his daughters how much they love him. Clearly, he is either one insecure man or just simply strange. You would expect a fifty + year old man who's probably lived with his daughter for over 20+ years t know how much they love him, but clearly he doesn't. He must have been too busy running the country to notice.
My overall feeling: Mediocre plot, over-played angst and at times even irritating.

Some have said that there are no memorable lines in the King Lear play. I would beg to differ. I am including a few: "Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say." -- King Lear (Act 5, Scene 3), Shakespeare. "This is the excellent foppery of the world : that when we are sick in fortune -- often the surfeits of our own behaviour -- we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, and stars, as if we were villains on necessity, fools by heavenly compulsion, knaves, thieves, and treachers by spherical predominance, drunkards, liars and adulterers by an enforced obedience of planetary influence." ---- William Shakespeare; spoken by Edmond in *King Lear*, act 1 scene 2.

When William Shakespeare wrote his plays, I doubt he thought much about the effect of his works hundreds of years in the future. Just as I write these words, I doubt they will have a lasting impression. Yet King Lear does leave us a lasting impression of power: even the strongest, more arrogant men can fall and faulter if the wrong conditions exist. May we all hope that one day North Korean dictator Kim Jung Ill meet the fate of King Lear.

After being forced to read Romeo and Juliet in 8th grade, I vowed I'd never pick up another book by William Shakespeare again. It was hard to read, boring, and I couldn't understand it. Now in high school, with interest in British history, I came across the tale of King Lear in another book, and decided that if it was really going to make much sense that I would have to read King Lear by Shakespeare. So, I did...and I LOVED it...when I put my mind to it, I could understand it, and I found it a great tale told by a great writer. A+!

I have read a few graphic novels for a class I took at my university, and this one was my favorite. If you consider the art matching the story to be important, this is the book for you. The emotions of the characters and events are well captured by the illustrations, and I found myself going back and looking at scenes again just to appreciate how unique the style is. If you have previously read King Lear like I did, this is the perfect way to start looking at various adaptations since it keeps true to the original dialogue and text. An interesting and exciting read from start to end.

- Robert

A great translation with side notes for terms/jokes that are from a bygone era. I wish there were discussion questions or thematic insights at the end, but it provides exactly what it means to. I especially appreciate that the editors make sure the pages stay aligned (original/translation).

King Lear is an intensive study of human nature. It tells a story of a king who is driven by his folly, divides the kingdom between his daughters Gonril and Regan , and disinherits Cordelia his youngest loving daughter and banishes her.

he soon discovers his mistake when his two daughters conspire against him

when he tried to go back to his loving banished daughter it was too late .

he was loosing his mind and he died soon after he heard of the death of his youngest daughter .

along the story of the king runs a another parallel story of Gloucester who's bastard son convinces him the his other legitimate son Edgar is planning to kill him .

so he tries to lay hand on Edgar to punish him ..

when Gloucester informed king lear that his daughters are planning to kill him .

Cornwall his daughter's husband plucks out his eyes

his son Edgar disguised helps his father and stays beside him until he discovers that it was his son and discovers his mistake towards him.

I enjoyed reading it very much, specially that it's language is simple .. much more simpler than Romeo and Juliet . Macbeth , and Hamlet for example.

this is the fourth play for me to read for Shakespeare and every time I adore this genius writer more and more. You shouldn't miss it, I hope you enjoy reading it .

Masterful as always, this tragic story of the aging King Lear.

Caring for an aging parent? Wondering who is going to take care of you when you get old? Wondering how you will be treated in your old age?Thinking about Estate Planning? Read King Lear!!!

Shakespeare is still "da man," and "No Fear" is the only way to read him. Don't miss this, one of his best works...

It's better than "All My Children" on ABC!!!

I have a two volume set of Shakespeare's plays but got this Pelican version for its portability. I was extremely pleased with the quality of the print-- not hard on the eyes like some cheap editions. Also, I was pleased to have both the folio and quarto versions and a helpful note in the front outlining the key differences. Highly recommend.

There is a nice section explaining things, giving you some background about Shakespeare and the play.
Then you have the page on the left as the original manuscript and the page on the right a modern translation
of everything on the left-hand page. Very well done!

Quite frankly, I can't understand why many people today consider `King Lear' to be Shakespeare's greatest Tragedy. I found the play to be somewhat interesting and somewhat entertaining, especially when the Fool constantly called Lear `Nuncle', but for the most part I found the play to be rather annoying. How Lear divided his kingdom among his daughters was very foolish. Lear acted like a senile, immature, mentally-disturbed, foolish old man throughout the entire play. Lear would have been much more of a truly tragic figure like Coriolanus if Lear was purely brought down by the treachery of others, but I think Lear's stupidity and foolishness mostly caused his own downfall.
"Thou shouldst not have been old till thou hadst been wise" is a quote from the Fool to Lear, which basically sums up the entire play. Don't get me wrong. This play was well-written, it has many good quotes, and I recommend it, but the annoying nature of Lear forces me to rank it among the middle tier of Shakespeare's Tragedies.

An annoying old fool named King Lear doesn't know the true character of his own children. He divides all of his property between his two disloyal daughters simply because they flatter him, and he gives nothing to his loyal daughter because she refuses to play the flattery game. In retrospect I can't blame the two flatterers for their behavior, considering that their father is an obnoxious fool. He gets his just desserts in the end - the short end of the stick. So there's a happy ending after all. Shakespeare wrote it with sympathy for the old king. He excuses arrogance in kings. I don't. The hell with King Lear.

Ian Pollack has done a great job illustrating this masterpiece. i find the illustrations extremely coherent with the characters as just one look at the character's design tells you a lot about them. Edmund's face looks the part as the moment i saw his face i knew something was up. Ian also uses some of his illustrating magic to show hidden messages throughout the book, which brings out Ian's contribution to this heavy play. This book is excellent for a quick read yet has all the depth.

This Shakespeare play was a more difficult story line to follow. There were a lot of seperate plots happening at once. i did enjoy it however because Shakespeare keeps it interesting with lots of humor and violence. Shakespeare's fundamental elements of hidden identities and deception run rampant in the twisting and turning story line.

The story follows the life of King Lear who makes a some what bizarre decision to split up his kingdom between his three daughters before he dies instead of after. He then banishes his youngest and favorite daughter for disagreeing with him and divides his land between his two evil daughters. Shakespeare tries to get the audience to have sympathy for Lear yet it is hard to do being that he brought all of the trouble he goes through upon himself. Overall it was a very intriguing story about regrets and decision making and i enjoyed reading the play.

King Lear was written at Shakespeare's most prolific period, a time in which he rapidly composed Hamlest, Othello, and Macbeth. I believe, without a moments hesitation, that King Lear is his greatest work, and probably the greatest play ever written. The plot moves quickly with excitement and action. The central themes of the play (among which are abandonment, unconditional love, and self-realization) are some of the most serious and important aspects of human nature. The play brings up many important quiestions: Why should we forgive others? Can we ever trust someone? All of these areanswered in this play. I recently saw a professional production of the play, and found myself quickly moving from emotions of fear, to laughing, to wrath, and at the climactic end of the play, breaking down into tears, having been drained by the plays rapid motion and tension. This play will live with me forever.

King Lear is one of the most excellent , brilliant piece of tragedy ever written by Shakespeare. I love Edgar's character as the betrayed son and brother. I applaud Shakespeare in his way of being able to intertwine the plots together.. The themes in this story he used of betrayal and love are classic!!! Only thing I couldn't stand was the language..ughh.....if you aren't fluent in English, forget about reading Shakespeare, much less John Bunyan's " Pilgrim's Progress". I read that too....but never finished it either. Overall I give this a thumbs up for reading. Good work, Shakespeare! (although this praise comes centuries past the date of due).

This was one of my favorite Shakespeare tragedies because despite Lear bringing the misfortune on himself, the reader truly does feel for sorry for him. When Cordelia could not declare her love to Lear like her sisters did, he takes this as a lack of love for him. Of course it wasn't, but Lear's desperate neccesity for admiration from those around eventually becomes his downfall.

While all of that action is going on, Gloucester's illegitimate son, Edmund is on the rise to power, hoping to overtake his brother. King Lear is obviously a tragedy, but there is one aspect of it at the end that is truly rewarding to the reader. Though none of Shakespeare's plays are, read this one and you definetly won't be dissapointed.

Although the liner notes describing portions of Act 4 in the boxed set I received were a little amiss, it would be hard to see how the performance itself could be improved. Paul Scofield is absolutely extraordinary as Lear as is Alec McGowen as Glouster and Kenneth Branagh as the Fool. Five stars isn't enough! It's rare that a story like this, which can become quite complex if one isn't familiar with the action, can literally jump off the recording and present us with visual images all along the way. Every actor deserves the highest praise for his/her performance!

Although this edition is not quite as exhaustive as the Arden Shakespeare paperbacks, it does have good commentary and even includes a fair bit of criticism. It's not expensive and the print is clear and readable, not small or cramped like some Shakespeare editions. The comments, which largely explain difficult words in the text, are printed on the same page as the text, which is helpful. I use a copy of this for studying Shakespeare - at such a good prize, you don't feel bad for scribbling notes in the margins.

All good Shakespeare tragedies have strong conflicts. The inheritence of kingdom is serious, and realistic. People have been fighting over power and control of land for thousands of years. Shakespeare shows how ingratitude and greed destroys not only a person, but the entire family. A must read.

First I'd better explain my reasons for the three stars. This book didn't do a lot for me because of my own inability to understand Olde English. I don't have the version I read of King lear listed on the store so I don't know if other versions are dumbed down for the lies of me or if they're all in Olde English. I needed to refer to the store reviewers twice to understand what was going on. And although I could write down a pretty accurate summary of the plot I couldn't become emtotional at all while reading it due to having to work out what I was reading. I read this book due to the feeling that I'm missing out on something and I still feel that now. I would advise people like me to find a modernised version if they can and good luck.

This is a terrific play, and the characterization is remarkable. It's considered a masterpiece, and for good reason.

But there is still one small comment I would like to make. Read the play. Then ask yourself who on Earth the character Goneril was. Um, she was the Queen of England. Not the wife of the King. The Queen. Albany was her consort.

Lear was no longer the King. Regan was not the Queen. Cordelia was not the Queen. Goneril was. And had a Man with her attitude about power been the ruler, no one would think it strange.

Yes, Lear is a tragic character, and it sure is tragic when he holds his beloved but dead Cordelia and asks if she is still alive. But Goneril is a tragic character too, and it is tragic when, upon getting clobbered in a battle, she decides to kill herself. And when asked how the battle is going, right before she dies, she replies, "Not so hot."

The Folger Shakespeare Library editions of all of Shakespeare's plays are excellent for use in the classroom. The notes are very illuminating, and there is much scholarship invested in being true to the original text. However, this printing of the play is too small. The pages are essentially 4 x 6 index cards (truly 4 x 6 1/2). The font is too tiny to encourage students to engage the text with confidence.
If you are already familiar with the play, this printing will suffice for reference. If you are new to the play, look for a larger book with larger font and margin space for notes.

Power, corruption, betrayal, and death are the themes significant to the play King Lear. Written around the 1600's, this play by William Shakespeare is best known for its tragic ending. In this play, betrayed by those he trusted most, King Lear is driven to the brink of insanity as his remaining power is snatched away. The dense rich language adds more meaning to the play, which is quite interesting due to the different twists in the plot, and the realistic portrayal of the diverse characters. This play, though hard to understand at times, is probably one of Shakespeare's best tragedies. This play is a "must read" book and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Here is the full plot of the play (read only if you already know the ending of the book):
The play begins as King Lear, the ruler of England, is giving his daughters his kingdom so that they can rule. However, he wants his daughters to express their love for him, and in return he would give them the land. The eldest daughters, Goneril and Regan declare their love and receive their land. The youngest, Cordelia, says that words cannot express her love, and this angers the king. He says that he will give her no land and dowry and she is married off to the King of France.
The scene shifts to another important character Edmund. Edmund is the illegitimate son of Gloucester, and he is creating a plan to trick his father into believing that his other son Edgar is attempting to steal Gloucester's wealth and then intends on killing him. This angers as he Gloucester and how he to kill his traitor son Edgar.
As the play unravels, readers see that Goneril and Regan begin plotting to steal whatever power the king still may have. As the story continues, the daughters' evil plans are revealed to the king as he realizes the Cordelia was the only daughter loyal to him and he regrets the decision he made earlier. As the play progresses the king becomes mad with the knowledge.
The play now takes place in Gloucester's castles and soon Goneril and Regan both fall in love with Edmond. Gloucester also learns the plans to the eldest daughters and he warns the king. After Regan and Goneril realize that Gloucester has told the father, they name him a traitor and torture him. In the end, Edgar saves his father.
The king leaves and heads for Dover. This is where Cordelia is waiting for her father. However, both the king and Cordelia are captured and imprisoned by the other daughters. Goneril, in the blindness of her love for Edmund, poisons Regan and soon is lead into killing herself. Edgar and Edmund duel. Cordelia was killed in prison and the king soon dies afterwards and then the play ends.

************Spoilers!
King Lear, by William Shakespeare was an unpleasant play because of its predictable plot, hard to understand language, and it didn’t intrigue me. The plot of King Lear was predictable. First, you could tell Edgar was going to be banished. What else would happen when Edmund, the illegitimate child is evil, and needs his brother gone to inherit anything? So, right away you get a sense that something will happen to him. But, Edgar has the sense of importance to the story, so you know he is not going to die. Then, look what happened to King Lear when he went out into the storm. His daughters that were already mad at him wouldn’t think twice about locking him out to make him fend for himself. After that, Cordelia had been banished at the beginning and she is the only one that has not been dramatically impacted and was loyal to her father. So, she naturally tried to help him during the battle and got caught. Sadly, she was hung by a servant. Finally, once Edmund took his father’s place, he immediately got attention from Goneril and Regan. Regan, whose husband just died was best suited for him. Goneril was jealous, and even though she was still married she would do anything for Edmund. With the way the characters are set up it makes a very predictable plot.

Shakespeare is to many, glorified for his brilliant writing. To me, the language is hard to understand. To begin, there have been multiple places that I have found myself lost in what’s going on. Here are a few examples of what the words are like. In Act 4, Scene 2 Oswald said “when I informed him, then he called me sot and told me I had turned wrong side out.” It’s just another day with a throbbing brain trying to decipher the text of King Lear. Another example of hard language is from Act 4 Scene 3 when Kent says “a sovereign shame so elbows him: his own unkindness that stripped her from his benediction, gave her dire rights to his dog hearted daughters. These things sting his mind so violently that being in shame detains him from Cordelia.” It takes a couple times of reading this text to really understand what Kent is saying here. When you’re reading this with no prior knowledge of Shakespeare’s writing, as I did, it doesn’t make sense. In conclusion, Shakespeare is hard to understand.

So, without being able to understand Shakespeare’s writing it failed to intrigue me. First, all the action happens off stage. Why would a great writer not create a battle scene on stage to be able to make famous last words before battle? It would add so much more to the play, but I guess that wasn’t what the people wanted back then. Next, the play never kept me in suspense; it always had the same base line. Characters would reunite and one would die. This happens all throughout the play; it never changes. In conclusion, Shakespeare’s plays didn’t inspire me to want to read more. The predictable plot, hard language, and lack of interest are why King Lear is a hard play for me to like.

I won't review Shakespeare or King Lear but instead focus on the quality of this audio production.
I am familiar with the BBC version of Lear, with Sir John Gielgud as Lear and Kenneth Branagh as Kent. I prefer the BBC version of King Lear to the Caedmon version.
For example, the clown in the BBC version is an older man, poignant and fascinating, while the clown in the Caedmon production is a young man, shrill and annoying.
The Caedmon Audio Skakespeare series is a great resource but has occasional flaws. Their production of Lear is an example.

One of the most crucial aspects of the play is the silence of the deity. "Blow winds & crack your cheeks..." This makes Lear Shakespeare's greatest work. Besides the sublime human foibles agonized over in the play, G-d is given a Jobian address in this
devastating drama.

Love the layout - play script on right and notes/explanations on left. The introductory comments/essays are useful to gain background on Shakespeare too. Our copies get very worn over the course of 7 months of rehearsing and staging the play.

'King Lear' begins almost like a fairy tale. There are two older sisters and a beautiful young sister who is given the short end of the stick. Shakespeare's tale of a father who doesn't know how to separate his kingship and fatherhood is masterful.

With the story conflict centering on two father figures and the problems they have with their various progeny, one has to wonder what Shakespeare was thinking of when he wrote it. His own father? Or perhaps himself?

The line breaks were all screwy in the Kindle version, no matter which size I made the type. This is poetry—I wanted to be able to see the linebreaks. Downloaded instead one of the many free pdfs available online.

I just want to say to all the teenagers out there who think Shakespeare is this old fart who only dinosaurs like ... YOU'RE MISSING OUT ON THE BEST THING EVER. I read "King Lear" as dubiously as a regular teenager - and I ended up shouting out loud in horror at some of the bits in it - there is some sick sick sick cool cool cool stuff in there. (If you really hate it, then just read the final scene of Act 3 - it's as brutal as any horror movie!!!!!!!!!!)

This edition is REALLY Helpful. While assisting to understand the unusual language, it still leaves room for the intelligent reader to figure out the plot without reading a summarry. Large margins are great for taking notes, and the book is very well bound, and is made with high quality paper.

This is timeless Shakespearean drama, about a King and his three daughters, wrapped around corruption, betrayal and tragedy. It speaks to the power and pressure of leadership, and modern politicians would well to heed its valuable lessons.
STEVEN TRAVERS
AUTHOR OF "BARRY BONDS: BASEBALL'S SUPERMAN"
[email protected]

I liked this book because it was much larger than the normal size of a Folger Shakespeare Library book. It provided ample amounts of space for notes and the text went along with most copies of King Lear, at times providing more text.

I wasn't sure if this was actually "King Lear" or just a retrospective. All 316 pages of the "look inside" were completely devoid of the play itself.

Can anyone confirm this book actually contains "King Lear" in it?

I hear a lot of people claim that the "No Fear" editions are the best way to read Shakespeare, but if you're reading this book, then you are not reading Shakespeare. Well, actually, I suppose you may be reading Shakespeare on one half of the pages, but on the other half you're reading, oh, sort of the vague imprint of the play, like a track in the dust.

You may think I'm just being a snob, but the truth is these "translated" versions that are all the rage these days just don't do the play justice, and the "translations" are misleading, because they take ambiguous language and pin one specific, modern definition to it, a definition which is often wrong and always too narrow. It's like eating soup out of a sieve; what you get out is simply not what you put in.

If you want to read "King Lear", then read "King Lear", but don't waste your time with this distant cousin.

By the end of this tragedy, for some unfathomable reason considered by many to be one of the greatest works of drama in the history of world literature, if not THE greatest, 10 characters wind up dead, 5 of them goodies: Cornwall's servant, Gloucester, the Fool, Cordelia and Lear; and 5 of them baddies (at least there's some balance and classical symmetry here): Cornwall, Oswald, Goneril, Regan and Edmond.

The whole regrettable series of events is triggered by Lear wanting to hang up his crown and step down as King and take it easy in his dotage. So he decides to divide his kingdom between his three daughters according to how much he reckons each of them loves and honours him. The two that don't love him at all, Goneril and Regan, go completely over the top and convince their doting father that they love him to death, which, in a way, as it subsequently pans out, they do; and the one who actually loves him, Cordelia, is so nauseated by her two elder sisters' gushing insincerity and venality that she says tells her father that she only loves him according to her filial duty as a daughter and no more. This causes Lear to totally lose it, disown her and banish her, upon which the King of France takes her on the rebound after she's dumped by the Duke of Burgundy because Lear's cut her off without a cent.

There follows treachery, Lear's descent into madness, torture, gouged out eyes, people getting stabbed in the back, people poisoning themselves and various other unpleasantness; in the end, the heroine gets hanged after everyone has totally forgotten about her being in mortal danger because they were too busy chewing the fat; and the main character dies of a combination of grief for the death of his beloved daughter, the strain of strangling her executioner and carrying her dead body after his frail constitution has already been severely weakened.

It goes without saying that with a little bit of meditation and mindfulness on the part of most of the characters in the play the whole sorry mess could have been avoided.

Catharsis? Schmatharsis. It's depressing. And I'm in good company for thinking so. Even that old bardolator, Samuel Johnson, found the ending `unendurable' and thought that it should be changed. And he generally knew what he was talking about. Cordelia should have been cut down in time and spared. Lear could have recovered and recuperated with some decent medical care to see his daughter married (after sorting out a mutually satisfactory separation agreement with the King of France) to the eligible young man who saved his life. Thus this gratuitously ghastly tragedy could have been turned into a splendid comedy with a happy ending and a wedding.

What more could one ask for?

It would have made for a much better play. Even Shakespeare didn't always get it right. Sorry Will. 1 star.

The title page is not family friendly, it contains foul language. I purchased 4 large print books from Loki's Publishing, King Lear, A Midsummer Night's Dream, The Merchant of Venice and Hamlet. Only Hamlet escaped with a family friendly title page. the store please ask Loki's Publishing to stop the bad language. Thank You