What is King Lear’s darker purpose? If there’s one thing Shakespeare readers can depend on, it’s Lear’s totally undependable characterization. Is he insane? Is he senile? Is he fragile? Is he wicked? Is he sympathetic? One can interpret just a single line of Lear’s dialogue in a squabillion ways.
In 1.1, Lear divides his kingdom among two of his three daughters by way of a diabolical test of their love – “Which of you shall we say doth love us [me] most?” (Lear, 1.1.49). Trying to picture the delivery of his lines and his physical comportment in act one is like trying to explain to a child why Van Gogh cut his own ear off. It doesn’t help that stage directions are scarce. But the challenge is kind of fun, and I’m sure play directors and filmmakers who have adapted the play would agree.
I could picture the delivery of Lear’s lines during the test in 1.1 a few different ways. Lear says to Cordelia, after she says she has no answer to his test (but more specifically—and perplexingly—she really says, “nothing”), “How, how, Cordelia! mend your speech a little,/Lest it may mar your fortunes” (1.1.2495). First, I thought, he totally says this line with a wink and a nudging elbow. Totally. But he also says it with clenched teeth and narrow eyes. Or maybe he says it with a little chuckle, like a self-conscious Santa Claus. Actually, he says it as a calm scolding, raising his voice but not shouting. You get the idea. It’s open to interpretation.
I don’t know if making stage directions sparse was a standard theatrical convention in Shakespeare’s time, but it works in this play. Really, all of Shakespeare’s plays are more compelling because of the scarcity of stage directions. Aside from encouraging the reader to feel confident in their capability of interpreting Shakespeare, the scarcity of stage directions packs a thematic punch. Less is more. The thematic implications of the stage directions, whether they are absent or (strategically) present, are wonderfully perplexing.
Of course, these revelations don’t get me much closer to figuring out Lear’s characterization. The dude is still massively complex and mysterious. The play is still massively complex and mysterious. Shakespeare is still massively complex and mysterious! I think that’s the point.
I guess the challenge of reading this play is settling on one or two interpretations of the characters and themes and then seeing those interpretations through to the end. As I’m still not sure what my idea of Lear is right now, it’s hard to say how consistent I’ll be in forming and maintaining a cohesive idea of him later on in my reading. But is trying to define an "idea" of Lear even the right approach to understanding him?
All I can say is, Shakespeare knows what’s up. It’s not easy to understand people at all. They’re not cardboard cutouts and they don’t come with an instruction manual. Lear really does deliver his lines in all of the ways I can think of, because he has all of the qualities I can think of.
1 comment:
This is a great description of the scene, Molly, and you are right to point out that the Shakespearean text rarely gives us the kind of developed stage directions we see in modern drama (or especially screenplays). As you suggest here, this is perhaps a strength, as it allows imaginative engagement with the text on the part of readers and theatrical agents. I'd be curious to know what you thought about McKellan's interpretation of the scene!
Post a Comment