Talk:King Lear

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the King Lear article.
Article policies
King Lear is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is part of Wikipedia's Elizabethan theatre coverage, and has come to the attention of WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, an attempt to create a comprehensive and detailed resource on the theatre and dramatic literature in England between 1558 and 1642. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (just like any other article!), or visit WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
King Lear is part of WikiProject Shakespeare, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Theatre Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Taking the Personal Interpretation out of the Summary

I think that calling the opening scene an "auction" is a personal intepretation. He is certainly "dividing" his kingdom, but it is hardly an "auction" since the pieces are given to duaghters before all of the "bids" are in. If this were an auction, Lear would hear all three daughters out before rewarding any of them. Let's figure out a neutral way of describing this opening scene. user:JTyne

[edit] Adding Personal interpretation into Points of Debate

I think it's certainly debatable that this is a contest at all. This is not just my personal interpretation, but goes back at least as far as William Ball's "Backwards and Forwards", if not further. As per your instruction when taking the word "auction" out of the Summary, I did not replace it with my own interpretations over what that scene might be instead. I left it as nuetral as possible. We should develop both points of view on this matter (since it has been a point of debate between not just you and I) instead of just striking out each others words. "Points of Debate" seems to be the place to contribute as many possible interpretations as possible. user:JTyne

Jtyne: please read WP:V to get a better idea of what is expected in Wikipedia articles. Your addition states that "it is often thought that this is some kind of auction". If it is indeed 'often thought', then you should rewrite the passage, citing some authors who have published this interpretation: name, titles, dates, page numbers etc. For example, say something like "William Ball, in <insert proper citation here> has argued that the ceremony works like an auction". Wikipedia is not the place for everyone to throw in their own personal opinion, it's a place for summarizing published interpretations: see WP:V. The Singing Badger 15:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Badger: Thank you. I cited David Ball for his thesis for the auction that is not an auction. The idea that it is indeed an auction I left in from someone else's entry and I do not have a citation for it. I left the call for citations in hopes that the earlier person who used the word "auction" (which I personally like less than "contest"...but as you say it's not the place for my personal opinions) will post that a citation for it. JTyne 14:21, 26 April 2006 (CMT)
This is much better, the rewrite is a great improvement and you were right to leave up the citation flag. The Singing Badger 23:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Film adaptations

This section seems hard to read. I think the names of the films should be in the front, allowing for quick referencing. Another alternative could be to make a table with year, name, publisher, main actor, etc. Any opinions? DavidMendoza 16:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alas, there is no general template for movie adaptations created yet. In my opinion, "Movie adaptations" section in Othello article looks better, than here. Cmapm 15:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral?

"Regan and Goneril have never looked more evil and Holm’s performance is chilling." - This isn't exactly neutral, and is based on opinion. Does it have any place in Wikipedia? - User:Chewyman

No, it doesn't. I removed it --Tothebarricades.tk 02:40, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cordelia etymology

Sorry, me again - Is Cordelia really from "ideal heart"? Cor is a romantic rooted word, and the real version of Lear took place centuries before Jesus Christ was born. Also, previous versions (i.e. predating Shakespeare) have given Cordellia as the correct spelling, thus rendering the anagram incorrect. Or am I nitpicking? User:Chewyman

The anagram seems pretty ludicrous to me. I've edited the Characters list and the appended footnote to reflect the etymology my sources generally agree upon. Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare, where would I be without you?
Anville 16:43, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cordelia is a Welsh name meaning "Jewel of the sea", at least according to my sources. However, in early version of the story she was called Cordell or otherwise, which may or may not have been from "ideal heart".--The Wizard of Magicland 16:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if Cordelia is not a play on words, meaning "Heart of Lear". It is a stretch, I know, but it is something to think about. Aericanwizard 21:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US/British English

Having read the policy of which version of English to use, it seems that this article, being about a British play, should be written in Birtish English. Any objections? Chewyman 13:43, 2 Oct 2004 (NZT)

  • Yes. I object to the article being changed into British spelling if it's predominantly in American spelling to begin with. "Articles which focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally aim to conform to the spelling of that country (for instance the British "Labour Party")" is Manual of style policy, but so is this: "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another." Moreover, Shakespeare isn't a topic specific to Britain in the way the Labour Paarty is; he's as much part of the heritage of the rest of the English-speaking world.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 15:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Tragic ending

I've described what Nahum Tate's happy-ending version was and how long it ruled the stage (1681—1838), rather than just have Dr. Johnson refer to it in a mystifying way. Also I have removed this sentence: Later yet, Charles Lamb wrote, "To see Lear acted, to see an old man tottering about the stage with a walking stick, turned out of doors by his daughters in a rainy night, has nothing in it but what is painful and disgusting." Perhaps somebody can find another place for it? It's misplaced under this heading. Lamb is talking about the storm scene being painful and disgusting, which doesn't have anything to do with the tragic ending (only Tate's version was staged in Lamb's lifetime).--Bishonen (talk) 15:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ever?

In the Tragic Ending section, it reads

We then have the most devastating line ever written by The Bard: "Never, never, never, never, never!"' (Act V, scene iii, line 308)

I don't find this to be substantiable, or really even practical - it doesn't seem like it should be in here, or at least not in this form. Am I wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.147.235 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 6 December 2004

You're right. And when you see something like that, be bold. The Singing Badger 14:12, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Character Relationship Map

The map of the complex character relationships in King Lear, and have released it under a Creative Commons license. Any thoughts on whether it would add something to the article? Pdefer | !! 01:31, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Nobody seems to care particularly one way or another, so I added an external link, but didn't add the image to the article. Pdefer | !! 03:19, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

[edit] Cordelia/Fool doubling

Wikipedia's article reads "The Fool and Cordelia never appear on stage together; it is likely that in original productions they were played by the same actor, Robin Armin."

Shouldn't this very questionable sentence be changed?

Cordelia and the Fool are indeed linked to each other in Lear's emotional rapport to them, but literary analysis, valid though it may be, doesn't amount to factual evidence as to the cast of the original performances.

R. A. Foakes, editor of Lear in the third series of The Arden Shakespeare, page 146: "As Shakespeare conceived it the part of the Fool was probably written for an actor who specialized in such roles, Robert Armin, so it is unlikely that doubling the part of Cordelia was in his mind."

Female parts were taken on by boy actors. If Wiki's article on Robert Armin is right in asserting that "Robert Armin finished his apprenticeship in 1592" he would hardly have been a boy by the time Lear was created. (S.Camus 20:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC))

All of this is correct. I'll change it. The Singing Badger 01:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm no scholar, but someone more knowledgeable please investigate and consider appending this (noticed while writing a paper on Lear): from paper: "The latin root of Cordelia's new title of Fool means something containing air or breath (wiki). Skakespeare makes a play on this meaning just before Lear's death, as the grieving king questions why his daughter--here called his "poor fool"--should "have no breath at all" while "a dog, a horse, a rat have life" (V.iii.311-313)."

Latin root cited from the Court-jester wiki.

Perhaps more evidence to convert a few Corfoolean skeptics?

[edit] Cordelia conspiracy

Where does all this stuff on the fool being Cordelia in disguise etc come from? Never seen it before. Is someone having a laugh? Need to see some serious sourcing here, otherwise I suggest we get rid of this fantasy...

Indeed. I removed the following, which reads like original resarch. If it isn't, maybe someone will provide a citation... The Singing Badger 16:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
A more elaborate suggestion is that Cordelia never went to France but stayed behind disguised as Lear's Fool, serving her father in much the same manner as Edgar served his father Gloucester in the subplot. It has been suggested that Cordelia was aided in this service by the King of France who was disguised as a Servant/Knight/Gentleman. Near the end of the play, Lear says "and my poor fool is hanged", a line which could refer to the Fool (but in context is more likely to refer to the hanged Cordelia). An objection to this interpretation is that the fool was in Lear's service long before Cordelia was dismissed, and one of Lear's knights observes, "Since my young lady [Cordelia]'s going into France, sir, the fool hath much pined away.".
I just added a varient back in, before reading this; I'll see if I can find formal documentation, but this is information I've had from at least two seperate and unrelated Shakespeare classes. The fools appearance being marked as changed 'wan and pale with grief' contributes to the idea, as does the fact that 'a woman cross-dressing to be able to act in a powerfull roll' is a recurrent theme in many of Shakespeare's works. Still more amusing-- if the old theory that Shakespeare was a figurehead, and a woman was writing his works is true, then this makes even more sense. Re: is someone having a laugh, I first was taught this possible interepretation in 1991, then heard it again in 1993, so if it is invalid, it's not new. Kweston 17:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fool

maybe the fool was simply a figment of lear's imagination. Chensiyuan 04:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

How come everyone else in the play notices him then? Group hallucination? ThePeg 12 July 2006

[edit] I Am The Walrus - Is Paul dead?

The most audible line from Lear in I Am The Walrus is the right at the end: Edgar: Sit thee down, father. Rest you. This doesn't fit into the Paul-Is-Dead theory much does it? ThePeg 12 July 2006

[edit] some more controversial things on King Lear's origins

I know that I have no sources for it. That is why this is not in the article. Now stop pulling my leg and help me by searching the sources. A BBC World Service program on literature William Shakespeare said that the origins of King Lear might be in Shakespeare's personal life. Shakespeare had only daughters and belonging to the old times, he feared being dependent on his daughters in old age. This is a partial explanation to the play. Has anyone else heard anything like this? You can write in my talk page if you want to. --who is kushal? 22:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I repeat that I have no sources to back myself up. However, Shakespeare did have daughters only. See below for my source (which fails under the self-citation criterion but is a good jumping point.).

According to [1]: "He was married to Hathaway until his death and was survived by his two daughters, Susanna and Judith. Susanna married Dr John Hall, but there are no direct descendants of the poet and playwright alive today." According to [2]: "He was married to Hathaway until his death and was survived by his two daughters, Susanna and Judith. Susanna married Dr John Hall, but there are no direct descendants of the poet and playwright alive today."

Advertisement: The BBC World Service is broadcasting King Lear this Sunday December 24, 2006 0900 hrs GMT The production was recorded live at Globe Theater, London. Please listen to the play once again and think whether the link that I showed between Shakespeare's personal life and King Lear holds any water. Thanks for reading. Good day! --who is kushal? 22:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead image

Apparently the Dyce painting was demoted as lead image in July 2006, in favor of the first quarto title page, with no discussion or objection.[3] I've been equally bold and moved it back. The whole page looks better like that IMO, and the painting is more informative, too. Lear and the Fool in the storm are striking-looking and famous and specific to King Lear. The title page is none of these. You seen one early 17-th century title page, you seen' em all. Bishonen | talk 02:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Scofield Lear.jpg

Image:Scofield Lear.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicanor Parra

Nicanor Parra did a unique translation of King Lear named "Lear: Rey y Mendigo" (Excuse me, i don't speak english)

[edit] Garbled fragment under "Readings"

It is a debatable topic where there really are no 'true women' in this play it is in a sense crossing all lines of what it is to be human. human, nature in all its cause that pertains a woman well, to be a woman.

I am removing this fragment. It's agrammatical and doesn't make any sense. Confluence 12:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gloucester and link

I am removing the link to the Earl of Gloucester. Gloucester is not mentioned in the linked article, which is a link to the real Earls/Dukes of Gloucester and not the semi-fictional one listed here. (I have a feeling that the action of the play is actually real and will be proved to be historical in part; Gloucester was just the chieftain of a tribe of that area but still would have sworn fealty to Leir or Lear.) Owlqueen 13:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA fail

This article does no yet meet the GA criteria for verifiability or for breadth. Several sections lack citations, and there is no discussion of the language and structure of the play. The final sections of the article, about film versions, are still lists and need to be turned to prose. Feel free to renominate once it meets the criteria. Wrad (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Put Tate in one place

The sections "Performance history", "Tragic ending", and "readings" all discuss Tate's modified version. I think Tate should be dealt with in one place, though there's no reason not to mention him in the other sections. Otherwise, it just looks a bit messy. I have to plead guilty, myself, as I started editing one section without having read the entire article! I'll have another look later. I also intend to add references for claims about Kean, Macready, and Phelps having restored Shakespeare's version in full or in part. That information is fully sourced in the article The History of King Lear. Cowardly Lion (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination for article about Tate's adaptation

Just in case anyone is interested and has time, either for improving or for reviewing, I nominated The History of King Lear for Good Article Status in the literature section. Cowardly Lion (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Cultural references

Firstly, this is a trivia section by proxy. Secondly, it was full of spam - links to commercial products from bands etc, with tenuous links to references to the play. These have been removed. There's far too much spam from bands on wikipedia. Their products are commercial, from an industry many regard as evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.137.24 (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:CastleBurn Ran.jpg

The image Image:CastleBurn Ran.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)