After you watch it, respond to the following question as a COMMENT below this post (you should able to post anonymously, or you can create a free Blogspot account--it takes just a minute): If you were staging a new performance of King Lear, would you defer more to the Folio (which is the collected version of all of Shakespeare's plays) or one of the Quartos, which was published during his lifetime and while the plays were freshly performed? Which one do you feel is more insightful to the actual play and its author's intentions?
ALSO--Don't forget to answer two of the four questions in the previous post for Tuesday's class! Life continues, even with the Covid scare hanging over our heads...remember that Shakespeare had to endure many outbreaks of play, and hid away in Stratford for a year while the plague shut down the theaters in London. Social distancing was a way of life even in the 1590's!
Add comments here...
ReplyDeleteCody Baggerly
ReplyDeleteTo stage this particular play, I would likely defer to the folio itself. I base this on the idea that the folio was constructed by peers and scholars who were well regarded that believed they could compile a collection that represented who and what Shakespeare was. However, despite being scholars, they were flawed and we now understand they made mistakes in the folio. For this reason, I would defer to the folio but maintain an open mind in regards to the quartos. In this case (the same as Macbeth), I would feel the need to construct a vision of Lear that is rooted in the scholarly accepted folio but may cross over with the quartos (that we know derived from Shakespeare in some way) when it fits into the narrative.
Great response...in many ways, we have to defer to the Folio, since it was the last word on Shakespeare's authorship (and it put his name on many plays that were previously anonymous). But what if Shakespeare didn't have any hand in preparing the Folio? What if it's arranged on heresay and guesswork? What if the Q2 Folio, say, is actually the result of his revisions? That's why, as you say, we can't dismiss them entirely. We don't know where Shakespeare ends and some editor (or actor) begins.
DeleteI believe I would stage this play as it is written in Q2. It has the revisions that I believe Shakespeare was happier with. Q2 was published during his lifetime. He had corrected it to the point that he was happy with, and I feel Q2 would have been the one that would have been the most accurate representation of what Shakespeare was trying to say.
ReplyDeleteGood response, especially since it does fix Q1 errors and seems like someone (Shakespeare?) made it more in accordance with how it appeared on-stage. And yet, it still contains errors, and is missing many lines from Q1 and the Folio. But the Folio seems to be based more on it than Q1, so that's saying something.
DeleteHey there. Dani here. Honestly, I think that if I were to do a new adaptation of the play, I'd look at all of the stories and mash them all together to make something similar-but-different. IMO, if you're attempting to be true to what Shakespeare was like irl, (because he was into a lot of adaptation/revision/spinning the story on it's head to make something completely new), then reading all three can give you a more thorough idea of what the "vision" of Shakespeare was when he made this "tragedy". (I used quotation marks around tragedy because honestly, King Lear sounds like a petulant child and if you read it that way, it is less tragedy and more comedy.)
ReplyDeleteYes, great point--it's hard to neglect any of them, and each one might have a clue that unlocks the mystery of this play. No one version seems to really get it, so we have to read them all and imagine what is lost--and what each one finds.
DeleteI really like the way in which the editors of the Folger edition decided to create the one we are reading. Since we cannot know exactly how the three versions of King Lear (Q1, Q2, and the Folio version) came to be, and especially in regards to the extra 300 lines that are present in Q1 but not in the Folio, we cannot really know what Shakespeare intended and how he imagined it to be staged. It seems smart to try and piece it together, understand those random 300 lines, and see if you could make it one cohesive edition. Although, in this way, I could see the problem of potentially getting even farther from what Shakespeare could have intended, because you are taking such a liberty in almost creating a new work, and therefore it could not be as accurate.
ReplyDeleteYes, great points: if we use elements from all three, we could risk making it more confusing, especially since each edition represents a complete, coherent version of Lear, errors and all. So if we compile several 'right' versions, could that make it 'wrong'? And it's hard not to consider one version more right than another, even if we compile them. So isn't that simply choosing after all?
DeleteCarla Torres:
ReplyDeleteIf I was staging a new performance of King Lear, I would use the book we are reading now as well as look at other versions. I liked how in your discussion video, you discussed the different versions of the play. Meaning that no two are alike which is very interesting. The one that stuck out the most to me is again the one we are reading. I would also look at the other play versions and pick and choose pieces to use from each play. The reason I would do this is because every play is not the same meaning there are different versions of King Lear which would make for an interesting play.
Yes, great points...our version seems to be the best alternative if we really want to see the entire play, rather than any one version. But this could be like a paper we wrote that had three different revisions, made at different times, with the last one being the one you got the 'A' on. Would you want a new paper compiled from someone's C+, B+ and A papers? That could be very confusing!
DeleteAh! I am not sure. If I was staging a performance of King Lear, I think I would follow the Quartos - specifically Quarto 2. To me, the Quartos seem almost like Shakespeare's raw writing because it "lived" in his own time. Although the Quartos also passed through the hands of others, the Folio seems more refined by scholars and picked over (not to say that it is either more right or wrong...). So, I think it would be fun to take what was circulating on the streets and play with that. As far as trying to produce a play that is as insightful to the actual play and Shakespeare's intentions, I would probably choose to largely base it off of Quarto 2 (with the 300 lines + 100 added) because its words were alive and circulating the streets in the same time as Shakespeare - almost like pulling it from the time. Although, producers always add their own interpretations and marks from their time period, so perhaps I wouldn't completely be falling Shakespeare's intentions. Now that I say that, I remember that it may not have been Shakespeare's intentions necessarily to have those lines included... I don't know!
ReplyDeleteYes, great response...the Folio, as an early work of 'scholarship,' might have made choices and decisions for what seemed like right reasons, which turned out to be wrong (for us, at least). The Q1 especially probably wouldn't have these kind of mistakes, though it has many others. So maybe the mistakes are simply mistakes of the actors who transcribed it, but behind it, is the 'real' play as Shakespeare intended?
DeleteYolanda Helm:
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Titus Andronicus and Macbeth, I have to confess I am leaning toward the never used non-Shakespeare 1590 version. Especially since there is a young daughter on the line, I would like a happy ending! However, since this is Shakespeare, I suppose I would use The Folio version, since it would more likely reflect his intention for the play.
I would probably use the Quartos if I were to stage of performance of King Lear. Since they were written prior to Shakespeare's version of the play, I feel like they would be more close to what the original author intended.
ReplyDeleteGood response--as I said below, something that appears during his life and career might indeed be more reliable, or closer to what actually appeared on-stage. But how do we account for all the errors in Q1 especially? Wouldn't the sheer number of errors indicate a hastily composed, messy edition? What other errors would it contain, that not might be as obvious?
DeleteIf I were staging a new performance of King Lear, I would defer primarily to the Folio version since it is revised and refined by scholars who were doing their best to keep it as close to what they believed Shakespeare intended for this work. Although, there must certainly be some alterations that he might not have wanted since they obviously couldn't ask him for his opinion. So, with that in mind, I would also defer to the Quarto versions, particularly the 300 missing lines that were not included in the Folio, if they seemed to fit into the narrative. I feel like those 300 lines should be included because they were used when the play was performed when he was alive. And if he saw it performed that way, then I feel like it would be more insightful to the actual play and closer to his original vision for the work.
ReplyDeleteGreat response, and you make a good point; wouldn't an earlier edition of Shakespeare be more reliable than a later one? There's a better chance that he could have overseen something made during his life (and career), rather than something done after. This is the very reason scholars don't discount the Q1 or Q2, despite some obvious errors.
DeleteI would likely chose the Folio version as it was the last version to be printed. If the quartos were available yet the writers of the Folio felt it necessary to include this version than I feel like it is probably the most authentic. However, I also think that this decision would need to be based on the audience that you are presenting to, as well as the strength of your actors.
ReplyDeleteKurstyn Young:
ReplyDeleteI think if I were to stage a new performance of "King Lear", I would have a hard time deciding on which interpretation to use. I think the Folio version would be very useful, since it was put together along with his other works and scholars had an understanding of that version. But, I also feel like Q2 is a proper guiding tool to use, as well. Since Q2 was written while Shakespeare was alive, which could have also been based on what Shakespeare had truly wanted "King Lear" to be. The Folgers version that we have now is very useful for our readings and understanding of the play, but if I were to use Q2, I would assume I could properly understand everything since it was created decades ago, when Shakespeare and his time were still prominent.
If I were to stage this play, I would more than likely defer to the folio. Due to the folio being created by scholars and some of Shakespeare’s peers, it isn’t the full truth and the folio itself is flawed throughout. In constructing a play, I would like to have a clear eye view of things and have a true understanding of Shakespeare. Both the quarto and the folio’s are insightful, but I believe that the quarto would better suit myself if staging a new performance of the play.
ReplyDeleteSince my favorite part of watching a Shakespeare play is seeing different directors' and producers' interpretations of his work, I honestly think I would strive to reach a level of familiarity with all three King Lears and then pick the one I was most excited to work with. I'm glad that scholars compiled the A+ King Lear (to reference your analogy about the C+, B+ and A papers) and I recognize the need for a definitive edition, but we can't undo the murkiness, either, so we may as well embrace the freedom that that provides.
ReplyDelete