Sasha's Reviews > King Lear
King Lear
by
by

Here is Shakespeare's biggest bummer in a long career of bummers. Remember that catch phrase kids thought was clever in like 7th grade as they were discovering the joys of nihilism: "Life sucks, then you die"? That's the actual and entire message of King Lear. "Nothing will come of nothing," rages the doddering King, and there is nothing, and nothing comes of it.
And along the way, don't forget, we get maybe Shakespeare's most disturbing scene, the outing of the vile jelly, Marlovian in its gruesomeness.
Shakespeare liked the word "nothing", only partly because it's vaginas. He has some dark fun with it in Lear - check him out as he offers the disinherited Cordelia to Burgundy in marriage:
Stephen Greenblatt's Will in the World points out that Shakespeare has this weird tendency to excise the motive from his plots, which is part of what makes them so endlessly interesting and open to interpretation. Shakespeare's has Iago acting out of jealousy, because he has a crush on Desdemona. But Shakespeare more or less chops that out; Iago's motives are left murky. "Demand me nothing. What you know, you know," he says as he leaves the stage, and there's that word again.
And Shakespeare mucks with his source again in Lear. His (this is an oft-told tale) has Lear staging the whole "Who loves me?" thing so as to get Cordelia to marry who he wants. (It sortof makes sense in context.) Shakespeare once again trims it out; in his version, the game seems like no more than an old asshole who likes to be flattered. He changes the ending, too, which is happy in most of the sources. His Lear starts and ends in chaos and meaningless tragedy: nothing from nothing.
Lear isn't perfect. That fake suicide scene has never worked for me, and the mock trial doesn't really either, and frankly there's less in the way of glorious wordplay than there is in Hamlet or Tempest, and the parallel plots work together but also make it seem less focused than Macbeth or Othello. But it's a storm of nihilism, a dark night of literature, a virtuoso depiction of despair without glimmer. As an exploration of the emptiest corners of the world, the bleak and barren heath of your soul...nothing beats it.
And along the way, don't forget, we get maybe Shakespeare's most disturbing scene, the outing of the vile jelly, Marlovian in its gruesomeness.
Shakespeare liked the word "nothing", only partly because it's vaginas. He has some dark fun with it in Lear - check him out as he offers the disinherited Cordelia to Burgundy in marriage:
If aught within that little seeming substance,Burgundy's like nah, I'm good. But this play is about something less pleasant than vaginas: it's about the real nothing, entropy, death.
Or all of it, with our displeasure pieced,
And nothing more, may fitly like your grace,
She's there, and she is yours.
Stephen Greenblatt's Will in the World points out that Shakespeare has this weird tendency to excise the motive from his plots, which is part of what makes them so endlessly interesting and open to interpretation. Shakespeare's has Iago acting out of jealousy, because he has a crush on Desdemona. But Shakespeare more or less chops that out; Iago's motives are left murky. "Demand me nothing. What you know, you know," he says as he leaves the stage, and there's that word again.
And Shakespeare mucks with his source again in Lear. His (this is an oft-told tale) has Lear staging the whole "Who loves me?" thing so as to get Cordelia to marry who he wants. (It sortof makes sense in context.) Shakespeare once again trims it out; in his version, the game seems like no more than an old asshole who likes to be flattered. He changes the ending, too, which is happy in most of the sources. His Lear starts and ends in chaos and meaningless tragedy: nothing from nothing.
Lear isn't perfect. That fake suicide scene has never worked for me, and the mock trial doesn't really either, and frankly there's less in the way of glorious wordplay than there is in Hamlet or Tempest, and the parallel plots work together but also make it seem less focused than Macbeth or Othello. But it's a storm of nihilism, a dark night of literature, a virtuoso depiction of despair without glimmer. As an exploration of the emptiest corners of the world, the bleak and barren heath of your soul...nothing beats it.
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
King Lear.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
February 27, 2010
– Shelved
August 15, 2014
–
Started Reading
August 16, 2014
–
Finished Reading
August 20, 2014
– Shelved as:
2014
January 2, 2015
– Shelved as:
rth-lifetime
September 12, 2017
– Shelved as:
farts
Comments Showing 1-27 of 27 (27 new)
date
newest »

message 1:
by
David
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Aug 20, 2014 06:26AM

reply
|
flag

I doubt Greenblatt is the first to make that case - it's probably, like, totally well-known among Shakespeare scholars. But it was new to me.

Lenny, the first half or so is your standard Shakespeare bio - not much new to say there. In the latter half I gets to what I think is some great discussion of a bunch of Shakespeare's plays; that's where it gets worthwhile.
So my advice is either to skip the first part altogether or not to lose faith. :)

By the way, tell me what you mean about "fake suicide" ? My brain isn't working right now.

I think it's better than Othello too, actually, despite the fact that its plot isn't as easily grasped. I'm still trying to reshuffle my favorites in my head.
Fake suicide: Okay, (view spoiler) "Well, I guess the gods want me to live then!"
To me, it sounds about that lame in the play too. Like, how dumb is Gloucester? I know he just had his eyeballs ground out and everything, but srsly dude.

I find Lear, as great as it is, bleak almost past the point of reason. Othello has become more dreadful to me, because Iago himself feels so real, so threatening.


I actually quite liked the fake-suicide bit, but purely because it confused me.
It showed how valuable mime can be on an empty stage - for a second the suicide kind of did happen and also definitely didn't.
I think the lack of decisiveness (both the men are at the top of the cliff for one second then with a few words of Edgar's are suddenly at the bottom) shows how pointless life is.
So I saw the fake suicide bit as a quite nice (albeit annoying) example of what the whole play is arguably about: Nothing coming from Nothing.

That's a good point, I hadn't thought of that. So Shakespeare might be continuing to play around with this idea of staged vs real death, huh? Just like he does in Hamlet.
We start from "I'm going to get on stage and pretend to die," which is what's literally happening, and then he thinks that's a super weird thing to do so he packs layers on top of it. Here Lear is pretending to pretend to die, and in the end of Hamlet (Romeo & Juliet, too) we've kindof got people pretending to pretend to pretend to die.
And he basically does the same thing with gender in the comedies, right? He's just as agitated by the fact of men pretending to be women on stage, so he messes with that too - men pretending to be women pretending to be men, and I think there's at least a scene or two where he adds even another layer. (I'm shit with the comedies so I can't remember.)
You just totally helped me sort that fake suicide out! Now I get it! Thank you! You're great.

I realized right after I posted that it wasn't a great example and Romeo & Juliet works better.


And yeah, everyone already knew Shakespeare was hella meta, so basically the only original point in this whole discussion was Katherine's about the suicide, and I didn't even pick up her secondary point about the meaninglessness of life, the distance between life and death turning out to be nothing, the leap doesn't exist.




Anyway, you're welcome!


No. Way.
That's completely awesome, and thank you for sending that email!


I'm the same way! Endless lists of movies, TV shows and books that I can't get to. Some friends and I watched this together which made it happen.