What do you think?
Rate this book
The One <i>King Lear</i> by Brian Vickers
"King Lear "exists in two different texts: the Quarto (1608) and the Folio (1623). Because each supplies passages missing in the other, for over 200 years editors combined the two to form a single text, the basis for all modern productions. Then in the 1980s a group of influential scholars argued that the two texts represent different versions of "King Lear," that Shakespeare revised his play in light of theatrical performance. The two-text theory has since hardened into orthodoxy. Now for the first time in a book-length argument, one of the world s most eminent Shakespeare scholars challenges the two-text theory. At stake is the way Shakespeare s greatest play is read and performed.
Sir Brian Vickers demonstrates that the cuts in the Quarto were in fact carried out by the printer because he had underestimated the amount of paper he would need. Paper was an expensive commodity in the early modern period, and printers counted the number of lines or words in a manuscript before ordering their supply. As for the Folio, whereas the revisionists claim that Shakespeare cut the text in order to alter the balance between characters, Vickers sees no evidence of his agency. These cuts were likely made by the theater company to speed up the action. Vickers includes responses to the revisionist theory made by leading literary scholars, who show that the Folio cuts damage the play s moral and emotional structure and are impracticable on the stage."
Sir Brian Vickers demonstrates that the cuts in the Quarto were in fact carried out by the printer because he had underestimated the amount of paper he would need. Paper was an expensive commodity in the early modern period, and printers counted the number of lines or words in a manuscript before ordering their supply. As for the Folio, whereas the revisionists claim that Shakespeare cut the text in order to alter the balance between characters, Vickers sees no evidence of his agency. These cuts were likely made by the theater company to speed up the action. Vickers includes responses to the revisionist theory made by leading literary scholars, who show that the Folio cuts damage the play s moral and emotional structure and are impracticable on the stage."
- GenresShakespeare
Hardcover
17 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
April 27, 2018
Ostensibly written for the general reader, the subject matter here is utterly academic. There’s little to interest a general reader—even one with an occupational interest in Shakespeare. That said, I was looking forward to learning about the printing (and compositorial) processes in Elizabethan England, and how current editions of plays like King Lear are crafted in light of modern scholarship.
The first part of the book is somewhat interesting, as Vickers details the printing and editorial processes at issue. By the time the book concludes, however, he has gone into a full-bore rant against specific scholars for specific offenses—none of which are of the slightest interest to this reader. Additionally, his argument about cuts made to the 1623 Folio version of Lear are almost entirely based on his own personal aesthetics. I’m not a Shakespeare scholar, but the eye-rolling assertions he makes about Shakespeare’s intentions are impossible to take seriously. Vickers is clearly more comfortable parsing out the 1608 Quarto; his thesis sort of dies when he gets to the Folio.
This is not a book that is written to help a reader (or producer) of King Lear better appreciate or understand the play. (There are excellent essays and suchlike elsewhere that accomplish that task with grace, generosity, and charm.) It is, instead, a naked assertion of opinion. It’s Vickers himself, dear reader, that matters here—not you.
For a fun back-and-forth between the author and a critic, check out
The Text is Foolish: Brian Vickers’s “The One King Lear” by Holgar S. Syme, A Response to Holger Syme by Brian Vickers, and “King Lear” at the Stationers, Again: A Response to Brian Vickers by Holgar S. Syme. If nothing else, the quibbling and quarreling about the book is much more interesting if you’ve read the book. So there’s that.
The first part of the book is somewhat interesting, as Vickers details the printing and editorial processes at issue. By the time the book concludes, however, he has gone into a full-bore rant against specific scholars for specific offenses—none of which are of the slightest interest to this reader. Additionally, his argument about cuts made to the 1623 Folio version of Lear are almost entirely based on his own personal aesthetics. I’m not a Shakespeare scholar, but the eye-rolling assertions he makes about Shakespeare’s intentions are impossible to take seriously. Vickers is clearly more comfortable parsing out the 1608 Quarto; his thesis sort of dies when he gets to the Folio.
This is not a book that is written to help a reader (or producer) of King Lear better appreciate or understand the play. (There are excellent essays and suchlike elsewhere that accomplish that task with grace, generosity, and charm.) It is, instead, a naked assertion of opinion. It’s Vickers himself, dear reader, that matters here—not you.
For a fun back-and-forth between the author and a critic, check out
The Text is Foolish: Brian Vickers’s “The One King Lear” by Holgar S. Syme, A Response to Holger Syme by Brian Vickers, and “King Lear” at the Stationers, Again: A Response to Brian Vickers by Holgar S. Syme. If nothing else, the quibbling and quarreling about the book is much more interesting if you’ve read the book. So there’s that.
Displaying 1 of 1 review