Shakespeare's Lear....

Let's face it, the portrait of Will on the cover of most anthologies has a bit of a leer. I guess it is warranted. I mean the man did write some of the best plays ever and here we are, butchering his language and trying to understand his genius.

Besides the physical leer. Will has graced us with a human Lear. Well a play about a Lear. Who is a king. But might I add a man who seems to be going a bit off his rocker. One of the scenes that I looked at the most was the beginning. I mean it sets the tone for the play. And it is when Lear decided to give up his crown to his daughters.

WOAH! Daughters?! Yes, his daughters. His daughters husbands contribute a bit to the villainy of the play but it seems that the majority of the evil stems from the fact that his daughters (at least the elder two) are greedy.

But looking at the speech at the beginning of the play, it seems as if Lear was ready to give up his crown. When he asked for his daughter to say how much they loved him, he said us? Was he including the kingdom? Was he trying to get the girls to pledge their allegiance? It seemed almost as if he was an old man who had already gotten his kid/ grandchild the gift but wanted to be thanked for his effort. I mean he even went through the effort to divide the land in fair shares. But the question remains, why does he get so upset about Cordelia not wanting to publicly pledge her love to her father? Does this show his insanity? I mean he does bring with him all those knights later in the play and throw Kent out for no reason. These seem like pretty insane things to me. And why doesn't she want to profess her love? I mean she can't think that it is for real. That this is the end all to end all.

So what is Will doing in all of this? I think that he is just playing with the idea of greed, the problems between sisters and families, I guess even the problems between brothers! Maybe Will is even taking everything good that he could think of and adding it into one play.

Basically, I have no idea what Will is doing here. Just as in Hamlet, the sanity of the characters is questionable. Just as in Comedy, people seem ti be switching roles, characters seem to be shifting. Kent, someone high up, must reduce himself to an unintelligent man in order to serve the king. Edgar must disguise himself so as not to be falsely accused of plotting his fathers death.

Will keeps these themes of greed, lust, romance, disguises all in his play. They keep the play interesting. But he also seems to throw a lot of references of the Queen in this play. The Queen being Elizabeth. First, there is the references of the women ruling. I mean, yes the women suck at ruling. Except Cordelia, who seems to have her head on a bit straighter. And then there is the bastard son, Edmund, who tries to take the throne. I wonder if WIll is comparing Elizabeth to Edgar or Edmund, depending on the time and the current ruler and/or wife, Elizabeth was a bastard, daughter of Ann Boylan. Maybe that is what Will is getting at? He must appear to love the Queen but he was truly raised Catholic and that is what he believes? There is also the various images of the father dividing the land because he doesn't want there to be a problem with the heir to the throne. COuld this be also referencing the Queen and the problem there was about the heir when she ascended and left the throne?

So it seems that this reading left me with more questions? As Will is known to do... many thanks will, many thanks.