Sometimes I just get a hankering for Shakespeare, and I'd never read Lear until today. Definitely one of the better tragedies. I found the Edgar/Edmund story a little confusing in places, but Lear himself is outstanding. He's so narcissistic it's amazing Kent was so devoted! And did I miss it or did the Fool just disappear? ( )

A very enjoyable edition. Unlike most of the Arden editions, Foakes comes across more as an educator than an academic-among-friends. This does mean occasionally that he'll cover ground most professional-level readers already understand, but it makes this a really well-rounded introduction to the play.

The decision here is to incorporate both Quarto and Folio texts in one, with the differences clearly delineated. It's probably the best possible option for this play, and well done. ( )

this has the distinction of being the only work of his i would say i enjoyed. after reading a lot of these and talking to a lot of people why shakespeare is great, it seems to me he is a writer for:
- people who can read and enjoy pretty much anything ie the same people youll find reading harry potter and stuff. everyone that isn't obviously difficult or antiquated or without renown is an author for them, so this is a bit redundant
- people who are interested in art as something primarily expository and with exclusively objective standards of quality i.e. those who take the ideas of aristotle's poetics and universalize them. he is an EXTREMELY aristotelian artist
- people who would really rather read a work of philosophy than a work of literature, or at least people who think that philosophy is more IMPORTANT than art. as consequence, these are also people who really only care about whether themes are interesting and delivered intelligibly/cogently

my primary evidence for this is the fact that my enjoyment of the work comes almost entirely from the extreme affinity its thematic content has with what i think about love. here just like in every other work of shakespeare's i found the same clumsy devices and scattershot aesthetics that i feel, were i to read all his work, would characterize his entire output. maybe ill return to him a bit more to finalize this but it seems pretty definitive to me that as a writer shakespeare could not care less about beauty or aesthetics, so he isn't really for me at all and im not going to bother trying anymore

no reason to clown on people for talking about "reading" him and calling his work "literature" and talking about his faults as a "writer"; you know as well as i he has a reputation for being eminently readable outside of the theatrical context. nevertheless ive seen some of these works in play form and they didnt do anything to my opinion ( )

Shakespeare's masterpiece

PRATELEIRA EUNICE 1 LIVRO 121

A TRAGÉDIA DEFINITIVA SOBRE A VELHICE
Ao chegar à velhice, Lear, rei da Bretanha, se vê obrigado a dividir seu reino. A maior desgraça para um monarca atingira-o: para protegê-lo e garantir sua sucessão, nenhum filho varão, apenas três filhas mulheres, Goneril, Regana e Cordélia. As duas primeiras são casadas, respectivamente, com o Duque da Albânia e com o Duque da Cornualha, olhos cobiçosos por sobre as terras bretãs, enquanto que Cordélia recusa-se a casar, para permanecer ao lado do pai. Mas o assédio de estranhos pelo reino não é o mal maior do qual padece o rei. A progressiva dificuldade de discernir as atitudes e os discursos daqueles que o cercam, o embotamente da percepção da sinceridade e da falsidade humana e a suspeita errônea de onde viria a traição são os males fatais para o outrora grande monarca