Inside PBS Blog
Insights into PBS programming and personalities
"Five Good Questions" for Shakespeare Scholar Gail Kern Paster
Often called Shakespeare's "Everest," King Lear is a widely interpreted and always compelling play. This week, PBS' Great Performances will air a highly anticipated interpretation (it stars the magnificent Ian McKellen.) We thought this would be a great opportunity to brush up on our Shakespeare and invited the Director of the Folger Shakespeare Library to be our guest on "Five Good Questions."
Dr. Gail Kern Paster has been the library's director since 2002. She is also the editor of Shakespeare Quarterly, a scholarly journal that covers all topics Shakespeare. She has been a professor of English at George Washington University since 1974. In addition to three books, Paster has written numerous scholarly articles over the years.
Paster and The Folger Library have partnered with PBS Teachers to bring Shakespeare into the classroom. PBS Teachers hosted a webinar focused on teaching King Lear with the help of digital media. You can find out more about the tools offered and listen to a recording of the webinar here.
While you're in a Shakespearean mood, leave your questions for Paster below and I'll choose five for her to answer. Questions written in iambic pentameter get bonus points! Be so kind as to returneth in a week's time to see whether your queries have been answered.
Comments
Post new comment
We reserve the right to remove posts that don't follow these guidelines. By submitting comments, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which include more details.
Subscribe
Recent Comments
Is it?do you think you will ever record a Christmas album?
Great program. Nice that you are doing some honors to remember our veterans. This could be a...
Hi Everyone,
A few weeks ago Lidia made these honey balls where she boiled the honey with...
I never write comments on website articles but I could just not let this one go.
I have...
Lear's Daughters' Mothers
I've seen it suggested that surely Cordelia had a different mother than Regan and Goneril, how else can you explain the drastic differences in their personalities. What I'm curious about is the difference between Regan and Goneril. Do you imagine them as having the same mother, thus making them real sisters having a stronger bond than they do with their younger sister? Or do you prefer to imagine each from a different mother thus fostering more of the "every sister for herself" mentality that we ultimately see?
Lear's daughters' mothers
Shakespeare himself offers an explanation for the differing personalities, through an offhand comment from Kent. It's because of the stars under which they were born. It's an interesting remark, considering the diatribe against astrology from Edmund earlier in the play. If we are allowed to dismiss anything Edmund says early in the play because he's just such a bad guy, then Kent's explanation is the one left standing. Then again is Shakespeare's phrasing in another play that "our faults lie not in our stars, but in ourselves." This would dismiss both astrology *and* the mothers' influence. Since there is no mention I can recall of Lear having one wife, let alone two or three, perhaps we are left to conclude that Regan and Goneril are that way just because they are that way.
Regan and Goneril
Fair enough, John, although I wasn't asking for what evidence Shakespeare gave us, I was asking for personal opinion of how to play it. Were Regan and Goneril close sisters, united against their common enemy (Cordelia), who then parted ways, possibly directly due to the influence of Edmund? Or was it always every girl for herself? This would go directly toward the early scenes in the play - are they a team, or is Goneril the leader who tells her sister every move to make, leaving Regan as the frustrated younger one waiting for her opportunity to seize control?
How would you direct it?
Regan and Goneril
I've always thought of Regan and Goneril as quite a bit older than Cordelia; they both seem to have been in well established marital relationships and Cordelia was just at the point of being engaged. It wouldn't be unusual for that sort of age difference to result in a lack of closeness in sibling relationships; I know that even the three and four years that separates me from my siblings was enough to give them a close relationship...and we are all from the same parents.
Another thought: It's possible that Lear's wife died in childbirth with Cordelia and that could be one of the reasons why he favors her over the others, another reason why the older sisters are bitter, angry, and downright cruel to both of them.
I think blaming the non-existent mother is kind of an odd thing; we don't do the same thing for Shakespeare's other cruel female characters like Lady Macbeth or Margaret of Anjou (although Queen Meg was justified in a lot of her actions imho).
Easiest to engage?
Which of Shakespeare's works have you found is easiest to use to engage young students who are encountering his writing for the first time? Which, by contrast, is the most difficult?
An Actor/Student's Opinion
I'm not a teacher, in fact, I'm a recently graduated high school student, but I DO have 6+ years of experience in theatre, most often with Shakespeare's plays. I think that the easiest of Shakespeare's plays to introduce students to first is Romeo and Juliet, mostly because that is the most popular one, and there's a good chance that they may have seen Baz Lurrman's Romeo + Juliet, which will act as a kind of bridge for them to cross to better understand Shakespeare from the begining. Consequently, the hardest one to use as their first taste of Shakespeare would be A Midsummer Night's Dream, and the main reason for that is that there is so much mistaken identity and "drama" between The Lovers that it's difficult for them to keep track and try to learn more about Shakespeare and his plays in general.
Actually...
I would have to disagree. Romeo & Juliet may be one of Shakespeare's most popular plays but the relationship between Romeo and Juliet is much more emotionally complicated than the relationships in Midsummer. Sure, the plot of Midsummer is complicated and there is mistaken identity - but the language is some of the easiest to understand with a modern ear. The Mechanicals are almost entirely in prose and much of the verse in the piece is far less complex than in other shows. This is why Midsummer is so often performed with young people. Plus, you're forced to discuss suicide when dealing with R&J... a difficult (yet necessary) subject to broach with younger audiences.
Easiest to Engage
While R&J is often the play students begin with, I think Comedy of Errors or A Midsummer Night's Dream work better for the first exposure. Comedy of Errors is the shortest play Shakespeare wrote (1787 lines as opposed to 3100 for R&J) and it is silly and filled with rhyming lines. MND is a delightful comedy that is the most-performed high school play in the U.S. Young students love it.
The Easiest
The trouble with young readers and Shakespeare is not theme, characters or dramatic mode: it is language.
Begin with his Sonnets. If students can grasp the sonnet, then they have already the tools to analyze and decipher the plays.
Romeo and Juliet, Caesar or Midsummer night's dream are good.
Do not use Hamlet.
Language?
Folger's editions were created specifically to decipher Shakespeare's themes and language for the modern reader. The sonnets are dear indeed, but mostly without specific characters or plot; Hamlet was the Holden Caufield of his time.
Hello, Though I am not a
Hello,
Though I am not a teacher, as with most of the people commenting, I run a collegiate student-run shakespeare company. I have acted in 13 early modern shows and directed 4. I would have to agree with the commentary about the language. The easier the language the easier it is to learn and, for that matter, memorize. In Shakespeare's earliest plays he tends to be more metrically strict. In some of the later plays, there is more prose, which is, in my opinion, far harder to interpret and piece together for the untrained ear. I would also suggest choosing shorter plays, so that more attention can be placed on interpreting the language, and would labor a student schedule too heavily. I would say the best plays to start off with would be Midsummer Night's Dream or Comedy of Errors. However, Romeo and Juliet is also a good choice as it is well known and contains less of a subplot than others. Plays that I would suggest straying away from would be The Two Noble Kinsmen (if you count that as Shakespeare), The Winter's Tale, and Love's Labours Lost. Though they are all good plays, WT is hard to understand, because of the 16 year time change and statues coming to life. LLL really needs to be seen or performed to be fully comprehended.
Easiest?
@Jamie
Try Romeo and Juliet. =)
Best Intro to Shakespeare?
I think Romeo and Juliet is one of the worst ways to get people excited about Shakespeare. It's overdone and I think that even though the title characters are the same age as the kids reading the play, I don't think they're that easy to relate to.
I'm a fan of introducing Shakespeare through his comedies. As You Like It, Twelfth Night, or The Comedy of Errors would all be superb ways to introduce Shakespeare to kids. But then again, had I read any one of those instead of Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, and Hamlet, I probably would never have been infuriated enough to read The Complete Works the first time through to figure out why all the fuss over Shakespeare. :D
Easiest to learn...
I would choose Much Ado about Nothing, it is mostly light and airy...and nobody dies. Plus I'm a total fan of Lady Beatrice.
Easiest to *read*
I love "Much Ado About Nothing" and I agree about Beatrice, but I also love Twelfth Night and The Taming of the Shrew. The characters, cross-dressing, confused lovers, snide teasing... these were my favorites when I was a teen and they still are.
King Lear and Alzheimer's?
Last year, I went to a reading with Jane Smiley, who mentioned the time she spent researching A Thousand Acres (her novel based on Lear). She said that she attended a conference where one speaker suggested that King Lear may have been suffering from Alzheimer's or the beginning stages of dementia and perhaps Shakespeare was drawing from experiences in his own life.
I'm curious of your thoughts on this...
Maybe not suffering himself
Maybe not suffering himself from dementia, but perhaps having a 'sniff' of his own mortality. I think in his own ageing process, he is well aware of Lear's predicament. Also, in all of his work is evident a keen awareness of humanity - a great people watcher. Perhaps it is that coupled with maturity.
Why Shakespeare?
I have spent much of the past year researching Shakespeare, attempting to better understand why he has become the pinnacle of letters in the western world. While I have seen much brilliance in some of his works, I have come to believe that much of what he wrote was really quite weak in terms of strength of plot and development of character. I have difficulty praising him as the height of English theater while reading some of these mediocre works.
Is it the case that Shakespeare has been judged solely on the basis of his masterpieces while being excused from the works that are far from models of excellence and thereby avoiding a real comprehensive review of his work? Does his legacy rest at least somewhat on the myth that has built up around him since his death? Or does his mark as a master come from the fact that he made an evolutionary leap forward in the art of drama from which much of modern theater continues to develop?
Re: Why Shakespeare?
Well, frankly, "much of the past year" is hardly an adequate amount of time to read, research, analyze, understand and then assess the work of Shakespeare. Judging Shakespeare on basis of plot is kinda silly, given that almost all of the plots were borrowed. Try reading into the quality of the poetry and language, the richness, the antitheses and layers of meaning to be found in nearly each and every utterance - whether it is King John, All's Well, H4pt2 or any of the "non-masterpieces" - and you will find brilliance under every stone. I've been studying Shakespeare for close to 25 years and I feel that I am just scratching the surface in terms of understanding and appreciating his genius.
I agree with Gregg
Shakespeare cannot really be appreciated on the first read or listen. I didn't get it at first either but the more I was exposed (over the last 15 years) to his work the more I appreciated the characters and how their struggles represented challenges and developments that all humans face in life. Watching the show Slings & Arrows really demonstrates this. You see the behind the scenes struggles with a theatrical company's lives juxtaposed over their professional struggles with the text, plot, design and staging of three major plays. There are so many parallels and so many connections we can make from Shakespear's work, you just have to dig to find them. I also believe that the work is meant to be seen on it's feet instead of read on the page (although, that's a great place to start.) The continuity of the symbolism, the subtlety of the motivations isn't always obvious. The choices the director and actor express are a huge part of understanding and appreciating the work.
I'll tell you "Why Shakespeare"...at least why I Shakespeare...
Shakespeare has been held up as a pinnacle in authorship for multiple reasons.
1- Yes, his effect and influence on the theater world did make a lasting impact. Perhaps more so than any other writer.
2- His language use and imagery building is really quite extraordinary. Often, modern readers may not appreciate or understand exactly what Shakespeare has accomplished with the writing and language in his works because it is very far removed from modern comfortable speech. However, that does not lessen the significance of his writing.
3- As a playwright, he travels in a different sphere than novel writers. Remember that as you read his stories because his plays are far more complicated and character filled than many plays you will ever come across. (And I don't mean plays that include 100 people in the chorus, I'm referring to actual named characters.) His plays are often richly filled with character portrayal. And yet, of course in a few hours of a play, he is unable to infuse every character and every plot line with perfect attention- that's the nature of play writing.
4- While many plots are borrowed, they are borrowed well. I've performed theater and I've been an improv actor for years...creating stories worth telling is an extremely difficult process. Even using existing stories as a backboard does not significantly lessen the feat of creating cohesive, meaningful, and worthwhile stories. Perhaps not all of his stories are "brilliantly" told, however, each is filled with memorable characters and wonderful lessens. So there is value in each...even the "less powerful or popular" pieces.
5- And finally blame it on high school reading lists if you want, but it does not change the fact that Shakespeare is fully ingrained because he is not forgotten...hundreds of years later, EVERYONE knows who Shakespeare is. If an author can gain such notice, that very fact, tells you "Why Shakespeare?" He is not forgotten. At this point, I don't think he CAN be forgotten. His plays and versions of his plays/stories are performed more than any other playwright or author. Jane Austen is up there, but nowhere close to Shakespeare and there are a few modern playwrights that have made dent on the list, but again, not really even touching Shakespeare's influence. That is a very big deal. So therefore, Shakespeare is a very big deal. If you don't think he is, you just haven't looked hard enough yet. Or millions and millions of people could be wrong?
Sex and Lear
In King Lear, why does Shakespeare use a motif of lustful sexual relationships? What is the purpose?
nature vs. nurture
Is Shakespeare associating differences in personality to different parentage/mothers and legitimacy of birth, or to child rearing practices?
Shakespeare's Influences?
Do the characters/plot in King Lear or any of his other plays reflect people/events that occurred in Shakespeare's own personal life?
Glass Eyes
In your opinion, what is the true interpretation of the "glass eyes" line in King Lear; what do you believe it implies about the motif of sight?
Kent's last words
Kent says at the end that he "has a journey; shortly to go."
Do you think that Kent's last words meant that he wanted to die?
Do the family relationships
Do the family relationships in King Lear reflect the relationships that Shakespeare had with his family?
family relationships
I can't help but think that they do. "King Lear," along with several other plays written towards the end of Shakespeare's career ( "Tempest" and "Pericles" also come to mind), explores the father-daughter relationship in its various permutations, perhaps reflecting his own experiences with his only surviving children, both daughters.
Which of the sibling
Which of the sibling relationships feature in King Lear do you feel is the most destructive and why? Goneril, Reagan, and Cordelia, or Edmund and Edgar?
Kent's Last Line in Lear
Do you believe that Kent is moving towards death at the conclusion of King Lear? Would he be willing to commit suicide for loyalty?
Political Connections
Shakespeare's play King Lear was undoubtably influenced by the political happenings and turmoil of the time, what factors of real life in England in the 1600s can be directly connected to what Shakespeare wrote about in King Lear?
Are names symbolic?
In King Lear, what is the significance of each characters names? Are they symbolic?
Did Shakespeare intend to
Did Shakespeare intend to base King Lear on any particular ruler of England?
Historical King Lear
From another website: Raphael Holinshed: English chronicler. From c. 1560 Holinshed lived in London, where he was employed as a translator by Reginald Wolfe, who was preparing a universal history. Holinshed is remembered for his Chronicles of England, Scotlande, and Irelande (1577), an abridged history he published after Wolfe's death, compiled largely uncritically from many sources of varying degrees of trustworthiness. It enjoyed great popularity and was quarried by Elizabethan dramatists, especially William Shakespeare, who drew on its second edition (1587) for Macbeth, King Lear, Cymbeline, and many of his historical plays.
The first mention of a King Lear in English history is in the 12th century by Geoffrey of Monmouth.
What was the royal situation
What was the royal situation at the time and how did that influence Shakespeare's storyline?
Judgment Day
As the last ones left standing, Albany, Kent, and Edgar have come to their judgment day. Why is it that these three characters are left? What would these characters do for the kingdom? Who would be the best to lead the broken kingdom?
Cause and Effect
If Lear decides to divide his kingdom without having his daughters express their love for him, would the conflict between Edmund, Edgar, and Gloucester still occur; how did one situation affect the other?
Act 5, Scene 3
The demoument of KING LEAR (Act 5, Scene 3) seems a bit rushed to me. Goneril and Regan are killed off quickly, followed by Cordelia and Edmund. Lear dies soon after; Gloucester is implied almost haphazardly to be dead. As if all of this is not enough, Kent announces he is going to die. Do you think that the ending, with its gratuitous pileup of bodies and awkward plotting, is one of Shakespeare's weaker resolutions? Or, did Shakespeare deliberately plan a quick barrage of character deaths? Also, is Kent ill or suicidal?
What is the fate of the Fool?
I have always been curious as to what happens to the Fool at the end of the play? It seems as though he just disappears in the third act.
I also read an interesting theory stating that he believed the same actor that played Cordelia also played the Fool, hence the "And my poor fool is hanged!". What are your opinions on this casting theory?
And I too am interested in your interpretation on Kent's last lines of the play in regards to if he is suicidal.Thank you and all the best.
PLEASE DO NOT ANSWER OR COMMENT ON THESE QUESTIONS IF YOU ARE NOT DR. PASTER; I'M SURE YOUR ALL VERY SMART BUT I AM ONLY INTERESTED IN HER OPINION.
Is the fool alone in this world?
In King Lear, it seems as though the fool knows just what to say to calm Lear down, yet we never find out if the Fool has any family to do the same for him. Although the Fool provides comic relief, he seems to be the wisest of them all. Where does he gain his all-knowing sense of wisdom, and does he live after Lear's death?
the fool is hanged.
the fool is hanged.
Images of nature in KING LEAR
In the play many comments are made by multiple characters on "nature" and "natural" and "unnatural" along with the use of many elements of "nature": the storm and the lightning, Lears crown of flowers-similar to Christs crown of thorns and Ophelias crown as well, "Tigers not daughters", Edmund and Lear calling on Nature as a goddess and more.
When I played Oswald in a production of this play I found these images very useful to me, in getting into my role and into the world of the play.
My question is: What effect is intended by the repeated use of these words and imagery and what do they mean to a modern audience who is very removed from the "natural" world?
Also, what did you think of the ACTUAL hanging of the Fool at the end of the barn/courtroom scene?
Thanks!
Edmund
Do you think Edmund truly has a change of heart at the end of King Lear when he tries to change his order of execution towards Lear and Cordelia at the end of the play? Does this change in attitude matter to the audience, who already dislikes him and sees him as the main villain?
The Fool's Mysterious Disappearance
In Act III the Fool seems to vanish. Is his disappearance a symbol of the loss of Lear's support and sanity?
Why do you think Shakespeare
Why do you think Shakespeare has Gloucester, a beloved and innocent character, die offstage but have Lear, who, although loved, is at fault for the discord and chaos within the kingdom, die onstage?
(I undersetand that Lear is the protagonist and his death onstage provides more effect but why not have Gloucester die similarly?)
Why do you think the Fool
Why do you think the Fool disappears from the action of King Lear at the end?
The Fool
What is the significance of the Fool's sudden disappearance?
Often, the Fool and Cordelia
Often, the Fool and Cordelia are played by the same actor. This is both symbolic and functional for the theater (actors playing multiple characters were common in Shakespeare's time and still is today). Also, in Act V, Lear exclaims "The fool is hanged" as he weeps over Cordelia's body. He loved his Fool and Cordelia most, and it is often interpreted as a term of endearment.
Shakespeare's Relations
Why does Shakespeare choose to have Lear as a single, wife-less man and do you think that the play would be very different if Shakespeare did choose to have a queen involved?
Cordelia's departure from the kingdom
Coredila responds honestly when her father asks how much she loves him in the beginning of Act I. As a result of her overall silence to his question, King Lear banishes her from the kingdom. Why do you think Cordelia leaves her father and her home without a fight or more of an explanation defending her feelings for her father?
Role of Females in King Lear
What is Shakespeare's intent of showing female dominance in his play King Lear? How does this female dominace differ from the role of females in other Shakespearean works?
Maternal figures in King Lear
In King Lear, maternal figures are barely, if not ever, mentioned or shown. Why do you suppose that they are not included in this play? Do you believe that if mother figures, for example Lear's wife or Gloucester's wife, were included, the play would've been any different?
Do you think that Mark Twain
Do you think that Mark Twain based many of his themes and motifs in his novel, The Adventure of Huckleberry Finn, on Shakespeare's play King Lear
edmund's downfall
Is Edmund's downfall essentially Glouchester's fault for bragging about how Edmund was an illigitimate son? Could Edmund's downfall have been avoided if Glouchester had nurtured Edmund differently, with equal love and affection for both his sons, considering that Edmund's downfall leads to King Lear and Cordelia's death. Or, do you think that Edmund's down fall was inevitable?
A Chance to be Benevolence
Why does Shakespeare have Edmund show a good side right before his death instead of keeping him the consistently evil being that he is? Why does Edmund bother? What was Shakespear's purpose? Was he trying to show that human nature can change or that one's morals are never set in stone?
Cordelia's Death...?
Why would Shakespeare fail to include Cordelia's death onstage? The brutal blinding of Gloucester and the rather gruesome deaths of many other characters (TO MANY TO LIST) were all performed in front of the audience, why did Shakespeare choose no to include Cordelia's hanging? Did he want the audience's imagination to take the place of this specific scene as it occurred off stage?
Twist on Fairy Tale Structure
Critics assert that Shakespeare based his play on an earlier play that had a happy "fairy-tale" ending. Shakespeare's version begins with a test in the form of a question that must be properly answered to win a "treasure," a typical fairy tale scenario, but this play certainly does not have a happy "fairy-tale ending." How important is the underlying fairy tale structure to the meaning of this play, and do critics see this play as the beginning of Shakespeare's series of romances like Cymbeline and The Tempest, which also have a fairy-tale structure?
5 good questions
To leave the Leary queries for the nonce
Permit me toward the Histories to stray
In Richard Second, Thomas Erpingham
Palavers with My Lord Northumberland.
Is this the same good old commander who
At Agincourt with Harry Monmouth strove?
I do believe such great longevity
Was rare for any medieval cove.
Did anything happen prior to
Did anything happen prior to Shakespeare's writing the play that led him to write the play King Lear?
Polonius
Do you think that Polonius was a good man? If not, his famous "Neither a borrower nor lender be..." speech smacks of hypocrisy.
Your thoughts?
Polonius is a very
Polonius is a very interesting character. I was lucky enough to play the part about a year ago, and was delighted to find the comic undertones in the character. However, it is not that Polonius is a bad man. He is merely a father trying to protect his daughter and friends. Granted, he is quite dense, and misinterprets most circumstances. Yet, he only acts in the best interest of is children. Even in his to thine own self be true monologue, he only means to advise his son. Despite any hypocrisy, how many fathers have wanted better for his son than himself? He tells Ophelia to stay away from Hamlet, but, again, he just acts as an overprotective father. His thoughts revolve around his family and himself. He never accounts for the possibility that Hamlet's actions could be driven by the death of his father. This makes Polonius guilty of stupidity and really nothing else.
The "rhetoric" of a Shakespeare performance
Every performance of Shakespeare's plays reflects the time and place in which it was produced-- for example, its values, aesthetics, politics, goals, curiosities, obsessions...
What was the most outrageous or compelling performance you're aware of that locates one of his 400+-year-old plays in someone's "present"?
How does PBS's upcoming King Lear production reflect the times we live in now?
Language
OK, we want to bring Shakespeare to kids. Admirable. Language.
I once saw a copy of "Macbeth" in the original, set to "Macbeth" in Modern English. Original was poetry, beautiful, if at times a head-scratcher. "Translation" was easy-to-understand, but all the poetry was gone.
Questions as obvious.
5 Good Questions
Do you believe that Shakespeare's schoolmaster, John Cottom, would have influenced or conspired with Shakespeare before or during the the "lost" years to fight religious oppression? Is there evidence within plays that is suggestive of his activity during those years?
Donn Cottom, M.Ed.
English Teacher
Los Angeles, California
Could you explain the
Could you explain the differences between the Quarto and Folio versions of the play?