[Shakespeare] Discussion Questions for King Lear on Tuesday, June 15

[Richard Johnston]

Dear Friends,

Just a reminder that our next discussion will take place *tomorrow, June 15
at 8pm EST. *I will send out a final reminder tomorrow morning, along with
the dial-in instructions in case you've forgotten.

The *discussion questions* for King Lear are below. Marilyn has kindly
volunteered to take question 4, but we still need volunteers for the rest,
so I'm opening them up to the whole group. *If one of the other questions
strikes your fancy, please claim it by replying to all.* I look forward to
hearing your thoughts on this incredibly rich play!

See you soon,

Richard

*****

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

*1. ONE WORD?*

One way of getting into a play or other work of literature is to identify a
single word which, to your mind, captures the heart of the play--or at least
your vision of interpretation of it. As you read through or look back over
King Lear, try to isolate this word, and then try to explain to yourself why
it feels so important. Trust your insticts, and run with your imagination.
Your word may be one that appears many times in the play, or only once.

*2. FILIAL PIETY?*

William Hazlitt, the great nineteenth-century essayist and critic, wrote
that King Lear was Shakespeare's best play, and that the source of its awful
power was its treatment of filial piety, the bond between parents and
children. Here is what he says at the beginning of his essay on the
play: "The passion which he has taken as his subject is that which strikes
its root deepest into the human heart; of which the bond is the hardest to
be unloosed; and the canceling and tearing to pieces of which gives the
greatest revulsion to the frame. This depth of nature, this force of
passion, this tug and war of the elements of our being,* *this firm faith in
filial piety, and the giddy anarchy and whirling tumult of the thoughts at
finding this prop failing it, the contrast between the fixed, immoveable
basis of natural affection, and the rapid, irregular starts of
imagination, suddenly wrenched from all its accustomed holds and
resting-places in the soul, this is what Shakespeare has given, and what
nobody else but he could give."

What does the play tell us about the relationship between parents and
children? If Lear's "firm faith in filial piety" leads to his tragic fall,
what hope is there for the family? In Shakespeare's dark portrayal of
generational conflict, do you think he sides more with the old or the young?
What is your evidence for this?

*3. A POLITICAL PLAY? *

Is King Lear primarily a political play that happens to be shaped by family
dynamics, or a family drama that happens to have political repercussions?
Does Shakespeare put more emphasis on the political or the familial? Why?
Can you identify moments in the play where the emphasis shifts? What is
happening in those moments?

*4. GOOD AND EVIL?*

In his essay about King Lear, William Hazlitt said that Goneril and Regan
are "so thoroughly hateful that we do not even like to repeat their names."
Occasionally when we read works of literature we meet characters we
absolutely despise. Then there are characters we absolutely love: Lear,
Cordelia, Kent, Edgar. Something both literary critics and directors like to
do is to read characters "against the grain," whether by portraying a
hateful character sympathetically or a loveable character critically. Choose
one character in King Lear whom you strongly liked or strongly disliked
after reading the play. Now, try to complicate your reading of the play by
playing the devil's advocate to yourself. Try to find what's culpable in the
beloved, and redeemable in the despised. Can you reconcile your two
readings?

*5. A HAPPY ENDING FOR LEAR?*

In today's world, if a director wants to put on a (modern) play, s/he must
follow the playwright's script to the "t". That hasn't always been the case.
Before the era of modern copyright law, plays weren't protected in this way;
theatrical companies could change them pretty much at will, whether to
appease the censors or appeal to audiences. It may astonish you to know
that, for almost 150 years between 1681 and 1823, King Lear was performed
with a* "happy ending" supplie*d by an 17th-century editor named Nahum Tate.
In this ending, Lear regains his throne and Cordelia marries Edgar.

The great eighteenth-century critic, essayist, and scholar Samuel Johnson
restored the original ending of King Lear in his landmark edition of
Shakespeare's plays, even though Tate's version continued to be performed,
and he found Shakespeare's morally appalling. In his notes to the play, he
writes, "Shakespeare has suffered the virtue of Cordelia to perish in a just
cause contrary to the natural ideas of justice, to the hope of the reader,
and, what is yet more strange, to the faith of chronicles. […] A play in
which the wicked prosper, and the virtuous miscarry, may doubtless be good,
because it is a just representation of the common events of human life: but
since all reasonable beings naturally love justice, I cannot easily
be persuaded, that the observation of justice makes a play worse; or, that
if other excellencies are equal, the audience will not always rise better
pleased from the final triumph of persecuted vice."

What do Johnson's remarks tell us about his views of the purpose of drama
and the relationship between life and literature? Are you sympathetic to
Johnson's comments? Would you prefer the happy ending?

*6. THREE FILM CLIPS (optional)*

**If you have time, you might be interested in looking at one or more of the
following film clips of Act 2, scene 4, where Lear, having stormed out of
Goneril's house, seeks accommodation with Regan. In a scene remarkable for
its dramatic compression, Lear is rapidly stripped of all his followers and
then shut out of doors as a storm approaches. The clips are from the 1971
production with Paul Scofield, the 1974 production with James Earl Jones,
and the 2008 production with Ian McKellan, respectively.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ajDJ_uEVBo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftW7WcoOuU8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41ZDo9dhNaE

Which interpretation do you like the most, and why? Is making a film of King
Lear quite the same thing as putting it on stage? What do you think are the
advantages and disadvantages, the opportunities and drawbacks, the
possibilities and limitations, etc., of each medium?

*****

See you Tuesday!

All best,

Rich

--
Richard Johnston
Resident Tutor, Cabot House
Teaching Fellow, Department of English
Harvard University





-- 
Richard Johnston
Resident Tutor, Cabot House
Teaching Fellow, Department of English
Harvard University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://readingodyssey.org/pipermail/shakespeare_readingodyssey.org/attachments/20100614/8a4cddb6/attachment-0002.html>