Lear

by Edward Bond

Edward Bond's version of Lear's story embraces myth and reality, war and politics, to reveal the violence endemic in all unjust societies. He exposes corrupted innocence as the core of social morality, and this false morality as a source of the aggressive tension which must ultimately destroy that society. In a play in which blindness becomes a dramatic metaphor for insight, Bond warns that 'it is so easy to subordinate justice to power, but when this happens power takes on the dynamics and dialectics of aggression, and then nothing is really changed'.

Genres: Plays, Drama, Theatre, Classics, Retellings, 20th Century, Fiction

104 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1972

About the author

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bond

Reviews

[N · Rating 2 out of 5]

I *really* hope the seminar is going to show me the genius of this thing, because I don't see it.
haha pun

[samet · Rating 2 out of 5]

ne anlattın sen aga

[Barawe · Rating 1 out of 5]

Author in his preface: 'Animals only become aggressive – that is destructive in the human sense – when their lives, territory or status in their group are threatened, or when they mate or are preparing to
mate.'
Me: Looks at chimps jumping around in crazed euphory on a carcass of one of them, cats hunting for nothing but pure pleasure in 95% of cases, crows ganging up on owls the very second they see them, leaving only bloody mush behind. Whispers: 'Should I tell h-'
Discovery Channel: Shakes its head and does a shushing sound.
Me: nodding 'Right, right.'
Author: proceeds with some socialist mumbo-jumbo, capitalists-bad-socialism-good, writing some creepy-pasta-worthy gory fanfic on King Lear.
My Eastern European ass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B777...

[Scott Holstad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Postmodern brilliance. But then, I've been studying Bond for over 35 years, so I can see why some people new to him might find him disturbing. Of course, that's entirely his thing. That's the point. Take what you will from it. Recommended.

[Zahra Barlas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite amazing and yet very disturbing.

[Ella · Rating 3 out of 5]

That was a weird story, but at least the ghost was cute.

[Ipshita · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is as much disturbing as it is fascinating.

[Müge Turhan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Its like a Marxist Tarantino movie on a modern Shakespeare stage.

[Nick Jones · Rating 3 out of 5]

The stereotype of Edward Bond seems to be that he is an austere humourless Marxist. I read an interview with him a little while ago where he was complaining about a recent production of one of his plays, railing about the fact that it had no humour. This seemed to challenge the stereotype in that he identified himself with humour, but entrenched the stereotype in that he complained about the lack of humour in a railing and humourless way. Before reading Lear I didn’t know Bond’s work, other than seeing a couple of films where he was credited as scriptwriter. And I admit to liking the idea of Bond: I don’t think being an austere Marxist as necessarily a bad thing, although a lack of humour would be; that he seemed to be creating a British Brechtian-political theatre is intriguing. Does it work? Or, at least, does Lear work? It has to be admitted, there isn’t much humour (and there was always humour in Brecht). It is austere. Maybe it isn’t particularly subtle, but it probably wasn’t trying to be subtle. It should be noted Bond’s Lear isn’t a version or engagement with Shakespeare. The attraction of King Lear is that Bond was able to create a ‘mythic’ character in a ‘mythic’ time, he could create a Brechtian parable, a parable that deals with power and violence. But while being set in a past, it is also ‘timeless’: the soldiers, for instance, have modern guns: the mythic time encompasses both the past and the present. But while I find the methods intriguing, I’m not so certain about the results. It shows a society structured by power and violence…and then shows it again…and again. Lear might be overthrown by his two daughters; then they conspire against each other and against their husbands – power is corrupt and brutal and continues to be so. Considering Bond is a Leftist, there is a surprising lack of any alternative. Maybe Lear learns from his downfall…or maybe he doesn’t. I imagine a good performance could be powerful, but it isn’t so much a play with something to say, but a play that has something to shout…and it shouts it time after time.

[Vanessa · Rating 4 out of 5]

it's modernist drama......you either vibe with it or you absolutely don't. i enjoyed it quite a lot. it basically takes the template of Shakespeare's drama to show the workings of structural violence and the corruption of power. using Lear's descent into madness and his development in the context of this approach is actually genius and i liked what he did with the character.

i think the best thing about this play for me personally is the ending though. it's actually....hopeful. Bond spends the entire play depicting extreme brutality and individuals in the grip of an apparently inescapable oppressive social order, but then the moral is NOT "yup, guess that's just the way it is, there's nothing you can do". it's more like, asking the question of what can actually be done still. where could a starting line for change be. that's nice. in 2021 i am tired of nihilism and any poetics that doesn't resort to it is one i can get behind.

however, yes, the graphic violence is debatable. i, uh. am not sure whether i would actually want to see this performed, (or whether it actually works in favor of Bond's goal of critical audience engagement.....i think his reworking of the plot alone would do that just fine. but that's an interesting conversation all on its own)

[Aditi Barman Roy · Rating 2 out of 5]

I am sure Trump got his idea of building the Mexican Border Wall after reading this book. Too much bloodshed and cruelty on stage. The plot, though very disturbing, manages to alienate the audience from the very beginning, thereby , making the play a fine specimen of epic theatre. However, thought provoking though it was, I enjoyed reading Shakespeare's King Lear more .

[Berna Ece Gündüz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Vahşi, acımasız ve sert bir oyun. İçinde empati kurabileceğim bir karakter olsa muhtemelen çok daha çarpıcı olabilirdi. Ancak bu haliyle bile inanılmaz derecede gergin bir atmosferi var zaten. İronik bir sona sahip olması da okuyucuyu eşi olmayan bir hisle baş başa bırakıyor.

[Maho · Rating 5 out of 5]

Çok güzel,,, Allah belanı vermesin,,,

[Miles Gavaghan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Putting the wall fetish aside, this is a really disturbing and fascinating adaptation which maintains your interest throughout. Full of metaphorical backstabbing and deceit, this play explores corruption, blindness and the growing tensions which inevitably destroy their society. An absolute gorefest with a side of the gothic in the form of ghosts, a very enjoyable read and one that I would be VERY intrigued to see performed in the flesh.

[Mxj · Rating 3 out of 5]

3,5/4

I liked the author's approach and systemic violence, and views on power and how these two notions are linked
The characters are easily recognisable, and even if you never read King Lear by Shakespeare before it is still understandable
But something was missing in my opinion, i don't really know what - still a nice read only if gore details and story line are kot disturbing to you thought !

[adri · Rating 3 out of 5]

that was something

[Zehra · Rating 4 out of 5]

This play was one of the hardest texts I have read as a 22 years old person, in terms of context. It is agressive, violent and many times I had to take a break, it was too much at some point. But overall, as Edward Bond himself says on the preface, it is meant to be violent. He wrote it for it to be violent, and to show humans violence. If you think you can bare some gore and violence, and if you are interested in theatre plays, you should read this. A masterpiece at last.

[Lydia Hughes · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read in preparation for my Third Year University Course on Tragedy. Again, I’m finding the vast majority of these plays to be beyond my frail intellect. They seem a little to lofty and abstract for me. That being said, I much preferred this one to many of the others, as I could easily follow the story, and appreciated being able to recognise the characters at first glance. Captured the unnerving and disturbing elements of Shakespeare’s revered tragedy, injecting it with more contemporary questions about social morality in the modern world. I am excited to learn more about all of these texts from my tutors, and to consider their difference from the Classic and Shakespearean tragic dramas I have encountered and come to love. Perhaps soon I will be snow to say the same for contemporary plays.

[Dawn · Rating 3 out of 5]

not sure what i expected this to be but it wasn’t really this… i feel like there’s a lot of things that went over my head here but there were still things i appreciated (mostly the king lear parallels in all honesty)

i’m wondering if this might have been more effective as a novel? a lot of the narrative was told through asides which i get is a brechtian thing and he was heavily influenced by brecht, but i would still be interested to see how differently this might come across as a prose narrative

[Rasti Ali · Rating 4 out of 5]

Edward Bon brilliantly recreated King Lear, with parody and violence. Lear is just like Donald Trump who is obsessed over building a wall to protect his nation, not realizing the enemies are inside not outside. Bond basically explores the way we think of world though categorical thinking or the concept of us and them. By and large, since he is a postmodern author his work contains lots of intertextuality from names and ides from Shakespeare.

[Nour Hazem · Rating 5 out of 5]

EPIC.

[busé]

(modern english drama)

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Edward Bond's reinterpretation of Shakespeare's King Lear presents an intrepid and stimulating exploration of political themes, challenging traditional views on power, responsibility, and societal structures, Bond's adaptation delves into the complexities of governance, morality, and individual agency, offering a stark critique of authoritarianism and inequality. Through his reimagining of characters and plot elements, Bond crafts a narrative that resonates with contemporary audiences while engaging in a reflective investigation of human nature and society.

In this tome, the outmoded hierarchy of power is pulled to bits and dissected, revealing the faults and prejudices inherent in authoritarian rule. Unlike Shakespeare's depiction of a king's decline into madness and eventual revitalization, Bond's Lear confronts the intrinsic corruption and cruelty of the ruling elite. Lear's abdication of responsibility serves as a catalyst for societal upheaval, exposing the oppressive nature of his regime and the exploitation of the marginalized.

Bond's representation of Lear as a flawed and morally ambiguous figure challenges the conventional notion of monarchie authority. Rather than presenting Lear as a sympathetic victim of circumstance, Bond emphasizes his complicity in perpetuating injustice and inequality. By questioning the moral inferences of political power, Bond forces readers to confront uncomfortable truths about the nature of governance and the abuse of authority.

Central to Bond's reinterpretation, is the theme of individual responsibility and moral agency. Unlike Shakespeare's emphasis on divine providence and cosmic justice, Bond's adaptation foregrounds the ethical choices made by characters in the face of systemic oppression. Cordelia's transformation from a passive victim to a revolutionary leader highlights the importance of personal accountability and collective action in challenging oppressive structures.

Bond's characters grapple with the ethical dilemmas posed by their social context, confronting their own complicity in perpetuating injustice. Through Lear's journey of self-discovery and redemption, Bond underscores the moral imperative of confronting injustice and advocating for social change. By foregrounding the role of individual agency in shaping political outcomes, Bond challenges deterministic views of history and society, emphasizing the transformative potential of human action.

Bond's reinterpretation of King Lear serves as a searing critique of societal structures and institutionalized inequality. By exposing the brutality and callousness of the ruling class, Bond highlights the inherent injustice of hierarchical systems of governance. Characters like Regan and Goneril embody the ruthlessness and self-interest of the privileged elite. At the same time, Lear's gradual awakening to the suffering of the marginalized exposes the hypocrisy of the status quo.

Bond's adaptation subverts traditional notions of nobility and virtue, presenting a world where power and privilege are wielded with impunity. Through the lens of Lear's downfall, Bond interrogates the underlying dynamics of class oppression and social hierarchy, challenging audiences to confront the systemie injustices that pervals society. By foregrounding the voices of the marginalized and disenfranchised, Bond exposes the structural inequalities chat underpin political power and authority

To conclude, in this reinterpretation, political themes take center stage, challenging traditional views on power, responsibility, and societal structures. Through his bold reimagining of characters and plot elements, Bond techniques a narrative that resonates with contemporary audiences while engaging in an insightful examination of human nature and society, By deconstructing power and authority, exploring individual responsibility, and critiquing societal structures, Bond offers a compelling vision of political upheaval and social transformation. Through Lear's journey of self-discovery and redemption, Bond underscores the moral imperative of confronting injustice and advocating for social change.

Ultimately, Bond's adaptation serves as a powerful annotation on the complexities of governance, ethics, and human agency, inviting us to reflect on the enduring relevance of Shakespeare's timeless tragedy in a modern context.

A classic. Most recommended.

[Olive · Rating 1 out of 5]

I gotta admit, this interpretation Lear (the character) is truly deserving of everything that happens to him. However that doesn’t matter all too much, since every other character is just as terrible as him. The constant absence of any real character motivations. goals and any other form of establishing personality means that everyone seems to always make the worst and/or most vile choice they could make for no reason, seemingly at random.
This feeling carries on to the story as well. So much stuff happens off-stage, without the audience ever really being caught up on them. Everything feels like such a big mess that even the characters have lost the plot – and not in a way that the writer intended. The moment to moment interactions always feel like the characters are talking past each other. Every sentence spoken feels super clumsy, like no one knows what real conversation sounds like. Topics are picked and dropped at random, because the characters barely ever react to what the others on stage have just said and done. And when the topic/action changes to a new focus, there is no sensible transition – characters just randomly start talking about something new or doing something new without any catalyst. This extents to the larger scale story too. At several point, the writer just pulled new plot threads out of nowhere because he seemingly failed to create a plot that could span across all three acts.

In conclusion: Everything about this play feels like a first draft that is still unfinished.

[Elif Yıldız · Rating 1 out of 5]

"I know it will end. Everything passes, even the waste. The fools will be silent. We won’t chain ourselves to the dead, or send our children to school in the graveyard. The torturers and ministers and priests will lose their office. And we’ll pass each other in the street without shuddering at what we’ve done to each other."

[Michael Landes]

Some unexpected differences from the original, almost made me wonder why he adapted it. Still a great play - I'd only read Saved before and this was seriously, vastly different. Way under-read in the U.S.

[Joti · Rating 3 out of 5]

Walls. Perfect for the Trump era.

[Can · Rating 2 out of 5]

Bu kadar uzatmaya gerek var mıydııı

[Ece · Rating 2 out of 5]

frekansına giremedim

[Çılga Sevil · Rating 4 out of 5]

Özgürlük bir tutkudur