Talk:King Lear

message: The lead never states that the original incomplete Quarto version of the play King Lear was categorized as a history rather than a tragedy. If the quarto is worth mentioning then shouldn't the fact that it was called a historical play also be mentioned? 
MaryamHasan97 (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: [resolved] 1608 Quarto Version

message: 917 words
The play begins with the Earls of Gloucester and Kent discussing King Lear's plans to divide his kingdom among his three children. Gloucester introduces Kent to his own illegitimate son, Edmund. The King's procession enters and Lear announces that he will decide upon the marriage between his youngest daughter, Cordelia, and her suitors, the Duke of Burgundy and the King of France. Lear then proclaims that he will retire from government with immediate effect, granting a third of his kingdom to each of his daughters, but that they must first compete by publicly avowing their love for him. Goneril and Regan both eloquently declare their love, but Cordelia says only that she loves him according to her duty. Outraged, Lear disowns Cordelia, dividing her third between her two sisters. Lear sets conditions on his retirement: that he retain the title of king, that he alternate between the homes of Goneril and Regan month by month, and that he be served by a retinue of a hundred knights. The Earl of Kent chastises Lear, both for giving away his majesty and for disowning Cordelia, and Lear banishes him on pain of death. The king then offers Cordelia without a dowry to her suitors, an offer only France is willing to accept, out of respect for her honesty. Goneril and Regan privately agree that Lear was mistaken in disowning Cordelia and banishing Kent but that even in his prime he was prone to anger.
Edmund resents his bastardy, and plots to supplant his legitimate older brother Edgar. He tricks their father Gloucester with a forged letter, making him think Edgar planned to usurp the estate. In the intervening time, Goneril has begun to resent hosting the king, whose knights and Fool she finds boisterous and disruptive. Instead of exile, Kent has taken on a disguise and the name of Caius. Lear hires him after he helps to beat Goneril's servant, Oswald, for lack of manners. Goneril orders Lear to mend his behaviour and to dismiss half his knights. Enraged, Lear curses Goneril with sterility and threatens to take back his power, before then departing to meet Regan. In a private conversation, Lear admits to the Fool that he fears he might be going mad. Edmund frames Edgar for a murder attempt, encouraging him to fly the castle. Convinced, Gloucester disinherits Edgar, proclaiming him as an outlaw.
Regan and her husband, the Duke of Cornwall, soon arrive at Gloucester's home. Their arrival is quickly followed by Kent and Oswald, who quarrel, leading Cornwall and Regan to place the disguised Kent in the stocks against Gloucester's advice. Edgar, in the meantime, is being pursued across the countryside, leading him to adopt the persona of a mad beggar named Tom o' Bedlam. When Lear arrives at Gloucester's castle and sees Kent stocked, he struggles to control his temper, but secures Kent's release. When Goneril arrives and his two daughters decide together to dismiss his knights, Lear runs out into a growing storm, ranting to the skies. Regan, Goneril, and Cornwall shut the gates after him, despite Gloucester's protests. Lear and the Fool are found on the heath by Kent, who leads them to shelter. There, in the hovel, they encounter Edgar as the mad beggar, who Lear believes is another betrayed father. During the long stormy night, Gloucester arrives and encourages Kent to take Lear to Dover, where he has intelligence that a French army will land to restore the king.
While Gloucester is away, Edmund reveals Gloucester's information to Cornwall and Regan. When Gloucester returns from the heath, Cornwall gouges out his eyes as retribution. One of Cornwall's servants attempts to intervene and, although dying in the ensuing fight, he mortally wounds Cornwall. Told that Edmund turned him in, Gloucester realises that Edgar was innocent. The blinded earl is then thrown out and told to "smell his way to Dover". Receiving assistance from an old tenant, Gloucester hires Poor Tom, whom he cannot recognise as his outlawed son, to lead him to Dover.
Goneril meets Edmund and discovers that she finds him more attractive than her honest husband Albany, whom she regards as cowardly. Albany is disgusted by the sisters' treatment of Lear, and the mutilation of Gloucester, and denounces Goneril. Kent leads Lear to the French army, which is accompanied by Cordelia. But Lear is half-mad and terribly embarrassed by his earlier follies. Albany leads the British army to meet the French. Regan too is attracted to Edmund, and the two sisters become jealous of each other. Goneril sends Oswald with letters to Edmund and also tells Oswald to kill Gloucester if he sees him. Edgar pretends to lead Gloucester to a cliff, then changes his voice and tells Gloucester he has miraculously survived a great fall. They meet Lear, who is now completely mad. Lear rants that the whole world is corrupt and runs off.
Oswald tries to kill Gloucester but is slain by Edgar. In Oswald's pocket, Edgar finds a letter from Goneril to Edmund suggesting the murder of Albany. Kent and Cordelia take charge of Lear, whose madness seemingly abates. Regan, Goneril, Albany, and Edmund meet with their forces, and Albany urges that they fight the French invaders without harming Lear or Cordelia. The two sisters lust for Edmund, who has made promises to both. He considers the dilemma and plots the deaths of Albany, Lear, and Cordelia. Edgar gives Goneril's letter to Albany. The armies meet in battle, the British defeat the French, and Lear and Cordelia are captured. Edmund sends them off with secret orders for execution.
The victorious British leaders meet, and Regan now declares she will marry Edmund. But Albany exposes the intrigues of Edmund and Goneril and proclaims Edmund a traitor. Regan collapses; Goneril has poisoned her. Edmund defies Albany, who calls for a trial by combat. Edgar appears to duel with Edmund and mortally stabs him. Albany shows Goneril's letter to her, who flees in shame and rage. Edgar reveals himself; Gloucester dies offstage from the overwhelming shock and joy of this revelation.
Offstage, Goneril stabs herself and confesses to poisoning Regan. Dying Edmund reveals his order to kill Lear and Cordelia, but it is too late: Cordelia is dead though Lear slew the killer. Lear carries the dead Cordelia in his arms onstage. Lear recognizes Kent. Albany urges Lear to resume his throne, but Lear, too far gone in grief and hardship, collapses and dies. Albany offers to share power between Kent and Edgar. At the end, Albany (Quarto version) or Edgar (Folio version) is crowned King.
Above is our working synopsis. It should be a good deal shorter, in my opinion. Say 500-700 words, but we'll see. See  for the policy on summary writing. Wrad (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So do we edit directly on the above synopsis? Tom Reedy (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, this is how we've done it in the past, I suppose because it just gives us one spot where we can focus on the synopsis without worrying about it being changed by fly-by editors. If you have another idea, that's fine as well, of course. Wrad (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited and tightened up the sequential accuracy for the first four paragraphs. Much of my doctoral thesis has been on Lear, so this has been quite fun to do! :) Adt1605 (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Synopsis (Sandbox)

message: As someone who had to sit this "syllabus", I have to ask - is there an actual scholarly Marxist reading of King Lear? --Malkinann (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on your definition of “scholarly”; all this litcrit stuff is unscholarly to one degree or another. The latest Arden edition gives brief mention of a Marxist reading on p.45 (and gives a relevant cite), and the Oxford mentions it in passing. They key, for me, to all these readings, is to realize that they are all just different perspectives and value systems from which to interpret the play; and that the “truth” is both none of them and all of them. Lear, for instance, isn't to me a particularly Marxist play: a Marxist reading of it tells you a lot more about the Marxist than about King Lear. But, hey, I'm a biography wonk and tend to zone out whenever the topic gets anywhere near litcrit. --Xover (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I'm about 7 years too late for your syllabus, Malkinnan, but I have to gently disagree with Xover. Lear is absolutely a play about concentrations of power, the movement of inheritance, and the legitimation of authority — all big sociological features that Marx helped define and analyse! I'd say the most significant Marxist reading would be Jonathan Dollimore's on Humanism and King Lear from his book Radical Tragedy but there are plenty more! Adt1605 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've no idea how glad I am to hear someone disagree with me! :)I wouldn't dream of denying the validity of a Marxist reading, I just, personally, didn't feel it was particularly apposite perspective. But I hasten to add that I am not particularly versed in literary criticism (biography and historiography are more my speed), so my opinion on this is worth very little.However, I note that the article currently doesn't contain a section on Marxist readings. Any chance you'd be interested in adding one? In our articles on the plays we try to cover all significant critical approaches (see, for instance, Critical approaches to Hamlet), so if you see any obvious missing perspectives in the article it would be useful to list them. Pointers to good overviews or particularly significant works would also be very useful.There are almost 1500 Shakespeare-related articles on Wikipedia and only a handful of editors working in the area: any assistance would be welcomed with open arms! --Xover (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  My apologies for the slow response, I'd be delighted to help as and when I can. I'll have a little think about Marxist readings, and any other critical approaches, and see what I can add. :) --Adt1605 (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [resolved] Marxist reading? 

message: So what is the textual importance of this edition, since this article states it is used in modern editions? Was it practically a reprint of the 1608 Quarto, or does it possess any significant variants? -- llywrch (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: More or less a reprint. Definitely some interesting variants between Q1 and Q2 but more in terms of phrasing and word-choice — whereas the Folio has hundreds of entirely different lines. Adt1605 (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [resolved] The 1619 Quarto 

message: I love the play, but in the interests of completeness, there are two opera adaptations that I feel should be mentioned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lear_(opera)
I love Reimann's opera, it's done in a totally 12-tone, "modern" style and is one of the few operas in that style that is regularly performed.
There's also an excellent adaptation by the fine Finnish composer Aulis Sallinen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuningas_Lear
If it's agreed that they should be added, would they get their own section, say "Opera adaptations" or would they be folded in to the 20th and 21st century section of Performance History?
Thanks for your comments.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry Holland (talk • contribs) 04:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the headsup Henry. You should just go ahead and add these to the chronological sections (be bold!). When someone gets around to a real copy-edit there they may end up being refactored out again, as there are far too many adaptations to include every single one, but in that case the superfluous ones often get moved to a separate article on adaptions of the play. In other words, no need to wait for "permission" for small uncontroversial edits like these; and what you propose to change will be useful in some way or another eventually. As you can see, the Shakespeare articles have few active editors so any contribution is very much appreciated! --Xover (talk) 06:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [resolved] Opera versions 

message: The section "Synopsis of dual plot" states that Edmund "shows a letter from his father [Gloucester] to the King of France asking for help against them". I may be misunderstanding something (either in the play or in the synopsis); but I think the letter referred to is from the end of Act III scene 3, and is addressed to Gloucester, informing him of the French invasion; I don't see in the play reference to a letter written by Gloucester. If my interpretation is right, I think this should be corrected in the synopsis; does anyone have any feedback first? Vichordius (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the proposed change, having not received any replies to my earlier post. Vichordius (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Untitled50reg (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Untitled50reg (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [resolved] Gloucester's letter 

message: There's a repetition of sources in this paragraph: Philip Sidneys is citated twice in the text for the same reason. I think one should be erased, but I wanted to be sure and ask another opinion.--MNepi (talk) 09:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks MNepi. I've removed Sidney from the long list of "possible" sources and left the embryonic standalone paragraph that gives a little more information. This list should probably be pruned of the more speculative and loose entries, and what remains expanded upon, but that's a much bigger task. --Xover (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [resolved] Sources 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on King Lear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110930183651/http://www.cchs.co.uk/subjects/docs/english/english-john-danby.doc to http://www.cchs.co.uk/subjects/docs/english/english-john-danby.doc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The link was to a summary of the actual source cited from a school curriculum, so I just removed it altogether. --Xover (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [resolved] External links modified 

message: It seems like there could be more discussion regarding the decline of King Lear's mental state - especially the piece regarding Freud's assertion that Cordelia symbolizes death. 
There could be an overall expansion of how death is thought of in the play; furthermore, there could be potential analysis regarding how there was a lack of an original mother figure for King Lear's daughters (as far as we know) in their formative years that led to both their flattery of Lear and their lack of care for him, taking his love for Cordelia into consideration.
All information in the "psychoanalytic and psychosocial interpretations" section seems unbiased and clear - could use further explication. 
Adreyer2 (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion of the decline of King Lear's mental state 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Edwin Austin Abbey King Lear, Act I, Scene I The Metropolitan Museum of Art.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 18, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-09-18. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [resolved] [[:File:Edwin Austin Abbey King Lear, Act I, Scene I The Metropolitan Museum of Art.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: The last sentence in the Lede:
"George Bernard Shaw wrote, "No man will ever write a better tragedy than Lear."
Is repeated word-for-word in the Section "Performance History", subsection "20th Century". It's an isolated little "factoid" (there's a word for it, that escapes me atm, "triviata" is what my brain is outputting and I know it's wrong.  "irrata"?  "errata"?, one of those "literary words" used to describe the mechanics of writing...) Anyways, my "style" sense is that it's distracting, and irritating.  Mentioning it once is an interesting little fact to think about while reading, but having it mentioned twice removes focus from the Article and makes the Reader (me, at least) wonder if it's some kind of typo, or what.  Stylistically, I just don't like it.  It's distracting, and annoying. I wonder if it was done on purpose, or if it's the result of some kind of oversite, and if case B, should something be done about it?2605:6000:6947:AB00:75A9:D270:2421:59E (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [resolved] George Bernard Shaw Quote, Twice. 

message: In Wikipedia 2401:4900:2755:7D65:0:49:EA61:4001 (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  King Lear summary