Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

King Lear - What To Make Of It

Rate this topic


argive99

Recommended Posts

This year I have seen two excellent Shakespearean productions at the Vivian Beaumont Theatre at Lincoln Center in Manhattan: Henry IV starring Kevin Klein as Falstaff and King Lear starring Christopher Plumber as King Lear. Klein's performance was excellent as the lovable rogue Falstaff. Plumber's performance was masterful as the lost, despairing Lear. I have seen Laurence Olivier's performance on video and Plumber's was significantly better IMO.

I am trying to make sense of King Lear. It has been described as the most confusing of Shakespeare's plays and I have to say that it is difficult to pin down. Henry IV was easier to analyze. I listened to Dr. Peikoff's Eight Great Plays lecture series where he discusses Othello in great detail. He said that he had the luxury of having Ayn Rand lecture him for hours on that particular play and he wrote down every word she said. He basically described Shakespeare as a nihilist who did not believe that morality, any morality, had efficacy in human affairs. Peikoff said that this was not uncommon at Shakespeare's time (the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning periods of the Rennaissance) as Christianity as a moral force was being broken but nothing positive was replacing it so a skepticism, epistemologically and morally, emerged. He compared Shakespeare with other writers of the period such as Cervantes (Don Quixote).

I saw immediately the validity of all the points he made during Henry IV. In Othello both the Villian and Victim (Iago and Desdemona) are ineffectual. But also the fallen hero is also ineffectual (Othello). No one succeeds. Everyone both virtuous and villianous alike fail in the end. This was Peikoff's point; morality as useless to guide human action, which is why Ayn Rand descrived Shakespeare as the spiritual father of nihilism. The same dynamics are evident in Hamlet and, as I saw on stage, Henry IV. Falstaff, the man of no scrupples who scoffs at honor (and gives a famous speech which starts "what is honor") is a broken man at the end. Percy, the bold, fearless warrior, dies a useless death. Harry winds up king but in the process shuns all the friendships of his youth chosing the life of the power obsessed monarch. Again, morality is useless in guiding men in action. Shakespeare seems to mock it.

Which brings me to King Lear. There seems to be the same trend as both villian(eses) and victim are crushed at the end. Edmund, who seems very similar to Iago, has his villainous plot foiled at the end and dies a remorseful death. Lear himself dies broken and the only honorable man, Kent (who is IMO a better developed Horatio), pledges to follow his master unto death (ie suicide). Get past all that and it really is uplifting. :D

Yet, there are so many other themes in the play that I feel that Shakespear was trying to say more than Morality's uslessness. King Lear has a pre-Christian setting which I think is relevant and its theme about true power and apparent power is intriguing.

Anyway, if anyone has thoughts on the play I'd be glad to "hear" them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...