Rating: 
Summary: Very readable
Review: To say that this is Shakespeare, 'King Lear' is surprisingly easy to read. This is in no way to disparage any of his other work but personally I found this quite readable. The story concerns King Lear, a doddery old and increasingly insane old man. Giving his land out to his daughters he decides who should have the best land by how much they say that they love him. Whilst conniving Goneril and Regan win good shares, the youngest and more genuine Cordelia states her love to be immeasurable and is so cast off with nothing. All this plays in the background with Edgar and Edmund, the two entirely different sons of another royal cast-off, Gloucester.The primary theme is obviously family although despite the tragic consequences of the final act the hope of redemption is palpable throughout. As a production 'King Lear' is even better though, especially in the storm scene that echoes the inner turmoil of Lear's mind. Another point of interest is that the play was written coinciding with the ageing Elizabeth I of England who without an heir was worrying the country over what would become of them when she died. Although the best thing about this is that you don't need to have a great knowledge of the contextual influences to enjoy this, because there's a whole host of characters to boo and hiss at so that any preconceptions about possibly boring political intrigue are quickly dispersed. The play really comes into the light though in its final act, which is thoroughly enjoyable and brilliantly tragic. On a personal level, this is my favourite Shakespeare play.
Rating: 
Summary: King Lear:
Review: When rating Shakespeare, I always rate his works as compared to other Shakespearean works; otherwise, the consistently high marks wouldn't be very informative. For instance, if this were to be rated against the general run of literature extant, it would certainly rate five stars. Even by the standard I'm using, it's close. Like "Hamlet", this is a tragedy that still manages to have some very funny lines; as in "Hamlet", this is generally due to characters either pretending to be crazy, or truly being crazy, so it's something of a dark humor, but humorous it still is. Lear's jester has some great lines doing what only a jester could get away with (and what the reader wants to do): telling the King that he's an idiot when he's done something ignorant beyond belief. Edgar, son of Gloucester, banished by his father for supposed treason, plays the part of a mad beggar to save his life, and when Lear, honestly crazy from grief, meets up with him, their conversations rival anything in Hamlet for manic nonsense that still manages to make a certain warped and poigniant sense. It's a shame that the language has changed so much since Shakespeare's time, so that the masses are unable to enjoy and appreciate his wit; his plays were not written to be enjoyed only by the literati; they were intended to entertain and, yes, enlighten the masses as well as the educated; his plots seem to be right in line with either modern romantic comedies (in his comedies) or modern soap operas (in his tragedies). Modern audiences would love him, if only they could understand him; unfortunately, when one "modernizes" the language in a Shakespearean play, what one is left with is no longer Shakespeare, but simply a modern adaptation. Which, if done well, is not without value, but is still far short of the original.
Rating:
Summary: A classic made classic by the Twisted Sisters
Review: While all of Shakespeare's works are indisputable hallmarks of literature, this is by far my favourite of them all, and for two reasons: Goneril and Regan. I'm aware that when everyone reads/acts/produces this play that most of the attention goes to Lear and Kent and Edgar, not to mention that sap Coredlia. I'm aware that Goneril and Regan are usually dismissed as hypocritical, fawning, flatterers who get their just desserts. To dismiss them like that is horrendous! There are two main schools of thought on Goneril and Regan (disincluding the aforementioned dismissal). One is to say that they are--Goneril especially--purely evil, malevolent creatures. If that was Shakespeare's intention, then you can hardly call their evil--Goneril's especially--a weakness. In fact, if Goneril is purely evil, then it is her evil which galvanises her as one of the strongest characters in the play, if not THE strongest! She is so malevolent and beyond the reach of 'justice' that she escapes trial by taking her own life. Oh yeah, sounds really pathetic, huh? NOT. However, to see them as plain shades of black and white is rather over-simplifying everything. The question then arises: what made them evil? Their father? It is evident that the degress of love they receive is directly proportional to how evil they are: Goneril, the most 'evil', is referred to merely as 'our eldest'; Regan, the quasi-'evil' sister, is referred to as 'our dearest Regan'; while Cordelia, Miss Goody-Two-Shoes, is referred to as 'our joy', amongst other flattering and doting pet-names. Allows you to extrapolate some kind of familial history for the Lear family, doesn't it? I don't know about you, but if I was Goneril I would have done what she did a long time ago. If she is indeed the victim of Lear's fathering, then she sure as hell turns the victimhood back on the old goat and makes him suffer. If this is the 'true' interpretation of Goneril, then any similar sufferer of teenage angst should read what she does and roar. I know that readers of this may be furious that I've ignored the many other facets of this play in favour of one which would seem largely unimportant in comparison. It is not. Lear may evolve into a play of politics in the final Acts, but it starts out as a tragedy of the nuclear family. If anyone had known Goneril, "God help that girl" would undoubtedly been a phrase they would have uttered more than once when witnessing the 'share' of her father's 'love' she received. Goneril wasn't going to wait for God. She took matters into her own hands. Good for her.
Rating: 
Summary: The author is confused
Review: While I enjoyed PARTS of this play, I thought Mr. Shakespeare was a little confused about the central nature of love and compasion. Its still an interestingread, though. I recommend thatyou buy it, despite its nebulous approach toward life and love.
Rating: 
Summary: Not Abridged! 3-CD Set.
Review: With John Gielgud, Kenneth Brannaugh and Bob Hoskins my hopes were high for this. But somehow Gielgud lacks the anger and power of Olivier's 1983 version. Also, actors sitting at a table reading into microphones somehow miss the passion of an actual performance. Still, there are a lot worse versions out there.
Rating:
Summary: A Tragedy with Modern Implications
Review: With many people living much longer than they did in Shakespeare's time
and their children putting them in ratty nursing homes
where they are usually or even generally treated badly
and given the minimum of nursing care... going there
mainly to die, this play has something to say to modern man.
We like his daughters too often betray our patents and
they so often mistake our good intentions.
Is madness the cost of old age? Are greed and
envy any less despicable in modern children than
they were in the children of kings?
We all live better than the kings of the past in America today,
but treat our elderly worse than even the worst impoverished of Shakespeare's time.
And we still have homeless mad people ( like Edgar pretends to be)
on our streets and back roads. We haven't learned any lessons from our literature.
| 
