Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1995 :: April ::
Re: The Ending of *Lear*
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0331.  Saturday, 22 April 1995.
 
(1)     From:   David Wilson-Okamura <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 20 Apr 95 20:07:25 CDT
        Subj:   Ending of *King Lear*
 
(2)     From:   John Boni <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 20 Apr 1995 23:42:40 -0500 (CDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0322 *Lear*: Ending and Pagan Gods
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Wilson-Okamura <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 20 Apr 95 20:07:25 CDT
Subject:        Ending of *King Lear*
 
The fact that Tate's version of _Lear_ played for nearly a century and a half
ought to tell us something: the play obviously works with a happy ending.
Nothing in the play (except the ending as Shakespere gave it to us)
necessitates Cordelia's death--which is what (to my mind) makes it so
heart-rending when it happens: waste to no purpose.
 
                                Yours faithfully,
                                David Wilson-Okamura
                                
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Boni <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 20 Apr 1995 23:42:40 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: 6.0322 *Lear*: Ending and Pagan Gods
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0322 *Lear*: Ending and Pagan Gods
 
Regarding Bruce J. McIver's comment on Lear as a negative romance: Maynard Mack
did a piece perhaps thirty years ago in which he described *Lear* as a
"topsy-turvy romance," paralleling it (in contrast) to AYLI. The essay was
collected in one (of many) Essays on Shakespeare collections.  Can't recall
further detail.
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.