What do you think?
Rate this book
The One King Lear
In the 1980s influential scholars argued that Shakespeare revised King Lear in light of theatrical performance, resulting in two texts by the bard’s own hand. The two-text theory hardened into orthodoxy. Here Sir Brian Vickers makes the case that Shakespeare did not cut his original text. At stake is the way his greatest play is read and performed.
- GenresShakespeare
411 pages, Kindle Edition
Published April 4, 2016
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