King Lear Essay (opinions and advice please) (1 Viewer)

[Husayn]

King Lear was a play created over 400 years ago, and since then has undergone many interpretations. Shakespeare relied on the morals of the audience, presenting the play with many underlying themes of such as good verses evil and of redemption. The play is also symbolic of the context of the 1600s, particularly with regard to its masculinity and misogyny. The play’s universal literary qualities, such as the structure of progression from order to chaos, and its themes of good and evil, appearance vs reality and redemption have resulted in various interpretations. This essay shall focus on these interpretations and we shall analyse the extent to which textual integrity has been maintained.

Richard Eyre’s BBC production focuses on a familial and psychological interpretation. We see in the opening scene how Eyre has placed Lear in an embellished ensemble and placed him at the head of a dinner table. These features combined with Lear’s assertive tone and formal, rhythmic language help to establish Lear’s ascendancy over his other family members. This method of staging and its elements indicate Lear’s inability to differentiate between his roles as family man and king, and indicates that the abuse of power is relevant to all social groups and contexts. This interpretation does justice to some elements of the play, particularly Lear’s brash arrogance at having decided the division of his kingdom on professions of love, and also of Gloucester’s cruel and flippant attitude regarding his bastard son, Edmund. Eyre has also played on Western society’s appetite for drama by alluding to the origins of the chaos being Lear’s un-fatherly bullying and manipulation of his daughters, and his unquestioning and demanding love of Cordelia to whom he offers a ‘third more opulent’ than that of her sisters.

 

[silvermoon]

1.

King Lear was a play created over 400 years ago, and since then has undergone many interpretations.

grammar --> never have 'and' after a comma
wordy --> maybe something like: "Although first conceived over 400 years ago, Shakespeare's King Lear has proved adaptable to a multitude of contexts and interpretations." (that wasn't too crash hot either, but you get what I mean I suppose)

2.

Shakespeare relied on the morals of the audience, presenting the play with many underlying themes of such as good verses evil and of redemption.

morals of HIS audience
context vs theme --> a thematic approach is more appropriate for close study of text or for a discussion on textual integrity. In this module, however, you'll more likely to be asked to discuss the effect of context and interpretations/relevance

3.

This essay shall focus on these interpretations and we shall analyse the extent to which textual integrity has been maintained.

NEVER write "This essay shall..." EVER! you need to maintain a third-person, formal and detached tone. Whilst your introduction must make clear a thesis, it should be apparent through what you say, rather than an outright declaration of 'I'm going to discuss..."

4.

Richard Eyre’s BBC production focuses on a familial and psychological interpretation.

you need agreement: 'a' and 'interpretation' implies a singular approach, but you specify TWO. hence, you need to drop the 'a' and add an 's' to 'interpretation'

5.

We see in the opening scene how Eyre has placed Lear in an embellished ensemble and placed him at the head of a dinner table.

use an active, rather than passive, voice --> drop the 'we see' and just delve straight into your argument

6.

These features combined with Lear’s assertive tone and formal, rhythmic language help to establish Lear’s ascendancy over his other family members.

comma use: you need a comma between 'features' and 'combined' and also between 'language' and 'help'
language: 'ascendency' isn't really the word you're looking for. whilst it explains what you mean, it's more than a but awkward. 'Dominance' might be more appropriate

7.

This method of staging and its elements indicate Lear’s inability to differentiate between his roles as family man and king, and indicates that the abuse of power is relevant to all social groups and contexts.

whilst what you say is true, all you have established previously is that Lear is powerful and dominant - not that he has abused this power in any way

8.

This interpretation does justice to some elements of the play, particularly Lear’s brash arrogance at having decided the division of his kingdom on professions of love, and also of Gloucester’s cruel and flippant attitude regarding his bastard son, Edmund.

'This interpretation'? what interpretation are you talking about? Apart from stating that Eyre's Lear is open to both domestic and Freudian interpretations, you have not in any way either defined the criteria for these critiques or specified how what you have talked about could be applied to either interpretation.

9.

Eyre has also played on Western society’s appetite for drama by alluding to the origins of the chaos being Lear’s un-fatherly bullying and manipulation of his daughters, and his unquestioning and demanding love of Cordelia to whom he offers a ‘third more opulent’ than that of her sisters.

tense --> you were previously writing in the present tense, so don't switch to past now: try "Eyre plays on Western..."
it's slightly paradoxical to say that Lear's love is both unquestioning AND demanding at the same time, at least without some explanation of how this can be the case

10. You need direct evidence from the play itself/the films you critique: you mention rhythm and character position once, but you can refer to any cinematic/literary techniques and you need quotes. Although the knowledge is obviously there, there is not enough discussion on the interpretations themselves or direct evidence


---> hmmm, this turned out quite a bit longer then i had planned. oh well.

 

[Husayn]

Thank you, that helped me greatly....

I wrote 'this essay shall' because we are advised to do that in legal studies, and it's worked for me before. Although I guess English is kind of different...

 

[Husayn]

"context vs theme --> a thematic approach is more appropriate for close study of text or for a discussion on textual integrity. In this module, however, you'll more likely to be asked to discuss the effect of context and interpretations/relevance"

I don't really understand how that refers to my little essay, can you please explain?

 

[Rekkusu]

Ah I believe what he/she is stating is that, in practically any Module B extended response, in this instance being King Lear [For I'm fine-tuning my KL essay atm as well] is that, one should try and not completely rely on the link between your issue/theme/concern with an interpretation, rather interpretations should more-so link back to the contextual influences that caused such an interpretation to arise.

For we must keep in mind that people do not have their own viewpoints via different concerns raised in a text, rather its more of the impact of the society or age.

E.g. When you see photos of fashionable people in the 1980s [this is the context if you like..], you'd think that it'd be quite distasteful [this is your interpretation]. But in that period, it was really fashionable.

Although it may not be a good example, I hope it has clarified your problem..

 

[silvermoon]

Thank you, that helped me greatly....

I wrote 'this essay shall' because we are advised to do that in legal studies, and it's worked for me before. Although I guess English is kind of different...

Yes, it is quite acceptable in science and social sciences to use "I will talk about..." "The essay shall explain..." etc. because these are generally structured or guided responses. in fact, you can write your essay for these subjects using subheadings and bullet points and still get full marks

 

[silvermoon]

"context vs theme --> a thematic approach is more appropriate for close study of text or for a discussion on textual integrity. In this module, however, you'll more likely to be asked to discuss the effect of context and interpretations/relevance"

I don't really understand how that refers to my little essay, can you please explain?

ok, well, my comment was based on the fact that you talked in your piece about the themes of Shakespeare's 'Lear.' I was trying to say that this module requires you to look at the text in various contexts through time and analyse the various interpretations and the techniques that allows us to differentiate between the approach of one director vs another. A sort of multi-facted appreciation of text i suppose it is. So, my point was that you weren't focused enough on what the rhetoric of your HSC question will tell you and what your syllabus will tell you that you should be talking about.

Oh, and I thought of one more thing - you may want to know either a few more interpretations or else more techniques, eg:
~ Jacobean: Shakepeare's Lear was actually only played once in over 200 years, after the first time Nahum Tate rewrote the ending fairytale style --> Cordelia doesn't die but marries Edgar and Lear gets his throne back: the revisionist ending was extremely popular as it supported the idea of poetic justice
~ Eyre: domestic, freudian and feminist. Consider the lack of props (making the ones that are there stand out more --> like the large table that is reminiscent of the family dining room table), the colour on the walls. For freudian, if you look at costuming of the women and actor movement during the dividing of the kingdom scene, Goneril is the wife/mother figure, Reagan is the lover figure and Cordelia is the death goddess figure
~ Blessed: there's so much obvious technical stuff to support a christian world view it would take me too long to write even a quarter of it (but once again, the dividing of the kingdom scene and the reunion of lear and cordelia are good scenes to compare)
~ Brooks: nihilist and absurdist. it's a good one to do, a very strong contrast with Eyre and Blessed, but you need to have a good understanding of both absurdism and nihilism. The long, overhead shots of the wintry tundra, lear's scene on the heath and lear's falling off of the screen at the end are good bits to analyse.
~ remember that you can analyse play versions as well --> there are lots that do marxist or humanist interpretations and one funky one where lear is inside a huge revolving cube...

 

[Husayn]

silvermoon, how about this (part of my new essay):

Nahum Tate in 1664 totally over-turned this idea of existentialism. This editing reflected the context of the end of 40 yrs of Puritan rule, a time in which people desired simply themes of emotion and love.

So I mention the production and then the context, is this better?

 

[silvermoon]

well, it would be except that the bit about existentialism is wrong --> essentially, existentialism is a modern philosophy. Tate's revisionist ending was popular until the 19th century: it wasn't because people 'desired simpl[e] themes of emotion and love,' audiences were not satisified with the fact that there seemed to be no justice to the end of the play (for example, why do Cordelia and Kent have to die?), they wanted poetic justice, some reward for redemption.
but the way you wrote it was far better