LEAR by Edward Bond: Summary and Critical Analysis

LEAR (1971)

"It's dangerous to tell the truth, truth without power is always dangerous" (Pg.76).

Overview:

Lear is the most controversial and violent three-act play by the contemporary British Playwright Edward Bond. As the title itself suggests it is a political comment and rework of William Shakespeare's 'King Lear'. Bond features Lear as a neurotic dictator, builds a wall to protect his country from his enemies. Their daughters Bodice and Fontanalle rebel against him and marry his enemies. Subsequently, it causes a war. Lear becomes their victim,undergoes self revelation. He becomes blind and eventually prophetic. He preaches against the despotic ruler Cordelia. He also raises her voice against The Great Wall. That ultimately causes his death. 

Plot Summary:

Act - I   Scene 1

The play begins with an indistinct crash shout of a worker. Later, it reveals that he has died during the construction of  the great defensive wall for King Lear. The wall is having built in order to keep away from his fatal enemies Dukes of North and Cornwall.

"Lear: Who left that wood in the mud?"

This is how the king reacts to the dead body. When Lear sees the dead man, his primary concern is the resulting delay to the process of building. The Foreman explains the cause of death that an axe was falling on his head. In spite of having oppositions from his daughters, Lear executes the man who accidentally caused that worker's death, for avoiding the subsequent delay. Bodice and Fontanalle raise some blatant oppositions regarding the Lear's violence along with supporting Dukes of North and Cornwall. But, Lear declares that they are his sole enemies. he says that he killed their father therefore, the sons must hate him.

In that moment Bodice and Fontanalle express their daring decision to marry them. they believe their marriage will lead to peace. But, the king rejects it, he was not ready to bless his daughters. instead, he curses them by saying "I have no daughters".

          "Bodice: If the king will not act reasonably it's your legal duty to disobey them".

Lear leaves along with his advisor Warrington by cursing them fatally. They leave to meet their husbands after planning to attack Lear.

Scene 2

The war ceremony goes on including the marching of  military aids. Lear greets the regiment in the parade ground. They also plan how to tackle with the enemies. Warrington puts forward an advice that they could refuse this war, as they are old and also going to fight with Lear's own blood. But, Lear rejects this again harshly by proclaiming they are the outlaws and they could be raped or murdered. Later, Warrington informs him that each daughter has sent letters secretly, demanding Warrington to betray Lear, then the other daughter and gives an offer as a head of the army also let him share their bed too. This reveals the degenerated attitude of the daughters.

   "Lear : Warrington, if I am killed or fall into their hands you must take my place and   build the wall".

Scene 3

On the other side Bodice, Fontanalle, Duke of North and Cornwall plan the war strategies. Each of the daughters want to betray their husbands and even betray each other, finally marry Warrington to run the country for them. So, the one shall remain has three countries.

   

Scene 4

The daughters' armies have been victorious. Lear flees. But they couldn't work out their secret plans towards their husbands. Cornwall and North remain intact. Warrington is now in their cage whose tongue has been cut out as Fontanalle is afraid of revealing some truths from him.

                 "Bodice: (aside) I see my sister thinks like me. I must never trust her. "

Bodice pokes the needle into his ears, makes him deaf too.

                  " Fontanalle: He can see my face but he can't hear me laugh!

                   Bodice: Fancy like staring into a silent storm... "

Bodice and Fontanalle leave. A soldier starts to take Warrington out.

Scene 5

Lear and old Counsellor is in the wood. they are raged, tired, dirty, frightened and famished. That time Warrington tries to attack Lear with a knife. Appears Gravedigger's boy by carrying bread and water. He gives shelter to Lear at home.

Scene 6

  At the Boy’s house, where Lear identifies how the Boy lives. The Boy has a pig farm and his pregnant wife, Cordelia. When Lear goes out with the Boy, Warrington returns with a knife, and the Boy’s wife calls out, saying that the Wild Man has returned. While Lear sleeps, Warrington returns with a knife, attacks Lear, then leaves. The boy takes Lear into the house. 

Scene 7

A sergeant and three soldiers appear in search of Lear. Warrington’s body is discovered down from the well. The soldiers kill the Boy, rape his pregnant wife Cordelia, and kill the pigs. The Carpenter arrives and kills the soldiers. Lear is taken as prisoner.

 "Lear: O burn the house! You've murdered the husband, slaughtered the cattle, poisoned the well, raped the mother, killed the child- you must burn the house! You are soldiers - you must do your duty! My daughters expect it! O burn the house!  burn the house! burn the house!

Soldier: Shut up and move. "

Act II  scene 1

Action takes place in the court room, political trial is about to begin in the presence of Bodice, Fontanalle, North and Cornwall. Guard brings Lear. He becomes mentally disturbed. When asked about Bodice and Fontanelle, Lear denies that they are his daughters. He finds himself as a caged animal while stares down at the mirror. He is found mad and taken away. Bodice tells Fontanelle that there are dissidents in the kingdom and that there will be a civil war. Fontanelle replies that the rebels are led by Cordelia. 

Scene 2

 In the empty cell of Lear. The ghost of the gravedigger's boy appears. his skin and clothes are faded. There is a dry blood on them. The ghost fetches the ideal spirits of his daughters. Lear converses with the young souls of Bodice and Fontanalle. Perhaps, the author may be employing the technique of 'lucid dreaming' here.

Scene 2

A drastic transition takes place to Cordelia. She frames up an army along with carpenter to pay her retribution.

Scene 4    

"Bodice: They wouldn't break a grasshopper's leg for us. Why did you think i put up with my husband for so long?"

Having realized the real nature of their husbands Bodice and Fontanalle keep them as their captive in their cells. Still they make use of their army.

Scene 5

In a country road. Lear and four prisoners chained together by the neck and blindfolded, they are lead and guarded by three soldiers. The carpenter, Lewis, Pete and other rebel soldiers take over them by overpowering the army. Later, it reveals that Fontanalle was one among the prisoners.

Scene 6

Now, Lear is in another cell . It is darker than before. Lear, Fontanalle and other prisoners are in chain sitting on the ground. The thin white ghost of gravedigger's boy appears again.

 A soldier shoots Fontanalle from behind. She falls dead immediately.

"Lear: What are you doing?

Fourth Prisoner: A little autopsy. Not a big one. We know what she died of. But I handle this routine work methodically. Otherwise, they think you can't be trusted with bigger things. My new papers will open up many new opportunities for me

Lear : Who was she?

Fourth Prisoner: your daughter.

Lear: Did i have a daughter?

Fourth Prisoner: yes, it's on her chart, that's her stomach and the liver underneath. I am just making a few incisions to satisfy the authorities."

  This is one of the most brutal scenes, the autopsy of Fontanalle by showing every inner body parts in front of the audience. Lear is awed by the inner beauty of her body.

Soldiers bring Bodice. She becomes dirt and disheveled. Carpenter declares that Bodice has sentenced to death. Soldiers beat and abuse her. She gives a spasm and dies.

Fourth Prisoner brings a device to remove the eyes of Lear.

"Lear: Aaahhh!The sun! it hurts my eyes!

The roaring in my head. I see blood (spits). blood in my mouth. Undo my hand and let me kill myself

Take me away. Take me somewhere to die"

Lear stumbles out with the ghost.

Scene7

In an open field, near the wall. Lear meets a family including a farmer,his wife and son (he is going to be a soldier,shoots Lear in the last scene). Lear requests a shelter to them.

Act III Scene 1

In the gravedigger's boy's house, more dilapidated but obviously lived in. Lear is now with Thomas, his wife Susan and John. They care for Lear in his blindness.  

Scene 2

Months later, many strangers gather to listen to Lear, he has turned into prophetic and philosophic. he captures the consciousness of the crowd by telling them allegorical stories.

"Thomas: Hundreds of people come to hear you now. The government can't let this go on, and they could crush us like that! We need support."

 Cordelia is in power now.She issues an order to restrict the public engagement of Lear.

"Councillor: Out of respect for your age and sufferings Cordelia has tolerated your activities, but now they must stop. In future you will not speak in public or involve yourself in any public affairs. your visitors will be vetted by the area military authorities. All these people must go. The government will appoint a man and woman to look after you. You will live in a decent quietness, as a man of your years should". 

Scene 3

Cordelia along with carpenter comes and meets Lear. A strong verbal dispute goes on in between them regarding the building of the wall. Cordelia also speaks of how the soldiers killed her husband and raped her and the way in which her new government is initiating a better way of life. Cordelia demands Lear to stop working against her. Lear urges Cordelia  that she must pull the wall down and criticizes her regime by saying that "your Law always does more harm than crime, and your morality is a from of violence."

Scene 4

Near the wall, a group of workers come on and stare at Lear. He leaves the shovel stuck in the earth. A junior officer comes in, it is the farmer's son. He aims his pistol. Lear digs the shovel into the earth. The officer fires, Lear is killed instantly. He falls down the wall pathetically. 
   

Analysis:

Edward Bond's Lear can be considered as a fine example for Epic Theatre, as he makes the drama more politically effective rather than just experiencing aesthetically. Shakespeare tried to capture the emotional involvement of the audience, but Bond tries to address the social issues and creates  political awareness. His plays are not meant for entertainment but for social transformation. He described himself as a revolutionary socialist. He was totally against the notion of Absurd Theatre. According to Bond one can not find real life in Absurd Thetre,it is often exaggerated,pessimistic and cynical. 

When it comes to the tradition of Epic Theatre, it was founded by the German theatre director Erwin Piscator and popularised by the German dramatist Bertolt Brecht. This type of drama was devoted to the expression of political ideas and ideals and a reaction against contemporary forms of theatre such as the well made play with its neat and manipulative plot and melodrama with its extreme and insincere emotions. It also reacted against surrealism. One of the chief aims of Epic Theatre is to make sure that the audience is always conscious of the fact that they are watching a play, so that they could reflect on the action critically. Brecht developed what he called the 'alienation effect', which created a sense of detachment in the audience from the action of the play. Unlike traditional drama, epic theatre does not wish its audience to empathize with the characters. In order to achieve this, Brecht used tactics such as flooding the entire theatre with bright lights and making the actors move the sets in full view of the audience.

Bond was very much influenced by Angry young man movement. The atrocities of world war framed his revolutionary radical reformist bent of mind. He was exposed to the violence of world war and witnessed the relentless dangers and despairs. So, the violence became inherent in his writings. it shaped his mind and attitude thus  he brought out the dynamics of violence extremely in front of audience. As he puts in his preface "I write about violence as naturally as Jane Austen wrote about manners". So, violence is inevitable in the contemporary society. Excessive use of violence made the play a bit controversial. Even the play begins and ends with blood shed, in between there are numerous scenes of brutality. All the rulers are obsessed with violence. It becomes natural once he/she is ascended in to power. Even Cordelia, she represents the oppressed, later turns to oppressor and ruthless. Rulers may change but violence remains intact.

Disintegration of modern family is conspicuous here. There is not even a single moment which shows the healthy relation between father and daughters. Lear himself shaped their personalities as the proverb echoes 'as you sow, so you reap'. They inherited all of his cruelty, greed and obsession with power.

When we talk about symbolism, the great wall takes its first preference. Lear tries to build a wall as he justifies it protects his subject from his enemies. As far as the subjects are concerned it creates a kind of claustrophobic ambiance and also restricts their freedom. Lear was preoccupied with the wall right from the beginning itself, paradoxically his further life remains in the four walls of prison. finally dies miserably beside the wall.

Click the Follow button below to get new updates.

Reader Response Criticism : An easy handout for beginners

Reader Response Criticism

As the name itself suggests, Reader Response Criticism focuses on reader's response to literary texts rather than on the author or on the work itself. It considers the reader as an active operator who completes the work of the author by making it come alive through his own interpretation. As a branch of criticism, it began in the 1960s and 1970s, later gained prominence in 1980s. It had its roots in phenomenology put forwarded by Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger. The Reader Response theory was largely a reaction against the New Criticism and Formalism, which ignored the psychology of the reader and the reader's role in recreating a text.

Reader Response Critics examine the various responses of the readers to a given work and try to see if the responses are similar to the meaning. They also try to observe if a work can have as many meanings as there are responses, but some responses are more valid than others. In this sphere of criticism readers are not a passive recipient of a literary work but as an active co-creator of the work.

A text's unity lies not in its origin but in its destination. It suggests that the role of the reader is essential to the meaning of the text. A reader can only enlivens a text. A reader can go beyond the text such as the internal feelings of the characters, thus establishing all the possible interpretation. A text does not exist until it is read by some readers. So, readers are the real source of meaning. They shape and initiate the text and becoming an active meaning maker. In fact, there is no text unless there is a reader and the reader is the only one who can say what the text is. In a sense, the reader creates the text as much as the author does. So, the critics should reject the autonomy of the text and to concentrate on the reader and the reading process. The major critics associated to Reader Response Theory are Norman Holland, Louise Rosenblatt, Stanley Fish, David Bleich, Wolfgang Iser and Hans Robert.

Different critics define the reading process and texts in different ways. As a result there are five variants of Reader Response Criticism:Transactional Reader Response Theory, Affective Stylistics, Psychological Reader Response Theory, Subjective Reader Response Theory and Social Reader Response Theory.

 Transactional Reader Response Theory

Often associated with the works of Louise Rosenblatt and supported by Wolfgang Iser, who established a clear cut formula. Transactional Reader Response Theory analyzes the transaction between text and reader. Rosenblatt doesn't reject the importance of the text in favour of the reader; rather she claims that both are necessary in the production of meaning.

The process of transaction takes place, as we read a text, it acts as a stimulus to which we respond in our own personal way. Memories, feelings and all other reactions occur as we read, and these responses influence the way in which we make sense out of the text. After all, reading literature is the sum total of our accumulated knowledge and experience, and even our current physical condition and mood will influence us as well. Thus, the literary work is a product of the transaction between text and reader. Both of which are equally important to the process.

According to Rosenblatt, our approach to the text must be aesthetic rather than efferent. When we read in the efferent mode, we focus just on the information contained in the text. It becomes merely a storehouse of facts and ideas that we could carry away with us. For instance, if we make an efferent stance to Arthur Miller's "Death of a sales man" It would be a play about a traveling salesman who kills himself so that his son will receive his life insurance amount. In contrast, when we read in the aesthetic mode, we experience a personal relationship to the text that focuses our attention on the emotional subtleties of its language and other symbolic devices used in the play. There are several elements that intensify the effect of the play such as the music, setting, light effect, imageries and language. So, without the aesthetic approach, there could be no effective transaction possible between text and the reader. According to Transactinal Theorists, different readers come up with different acceptable interpretations because the text allows for a range of acceptable meanings.

Affective Stylistics

This theory is usually associated with Stanley Fish.  It is also based on the assumption that a text can only come into existence as it is read; therefore, a text cannot have meaning independent of the reader. In his essay "Affective Stylistics", he attacks the notion that reading is a finished activity. The text consists of the results it produces, and those results occur within the reader any time. A sentence for him is an action made upon a reader. It should not be mistaken as the impressionistic responses of the reader, but should be understood as the cognitive analysis of the reading process. The process is described in 'slow motion'; it is the word by word or phrase by phrase analysis of the response of the reader. The reader travels from one word to another as one eats food spoon by spoon.

Subjective Reader Response Theory

David Bleich is the major spokesperson of this theory. It exhibits a radical departure from the above mentioned two theories. Both suggest that the text guides and controls the reader in the reading process. Bleich was of the view that our responses are not determined by the text, reading is completely a subjective entity and the nature of what is perceived is determined solely by the perceiver. The readers interpretation create and enliven a literary text. The act of reading create a conceptual or or symbolic world. Reading is symbolization. So, there is no literary text beyond the meanings created by readers' interpretation.

Psychological Reader Response Theory

Psychoanalytic critic Norman Holland believes that readers' motives strongly influence on how they read. Psychologically speaking he has Freudian leanings in his use of concepts. A work of literature projects fantasies, and our interpretations of literary texts fulfill our psychological needs. The source of pleasure for a reader lies in the transformation of the unconscious wishes through a literary work. The individual's subjective response is a close encounter with the fantasies created by the work. Our interpretations are the result of the desire, fears etc.  So, reading a text is a psychological process.

Social reader response theory

While the individual reader's subjective response to the literary text plays the crucial role in subjective reader response theory, for Social Reader Response Theory, usually associated with the later works of Stanley Fish, there is no purely individual subjective response. According to Fish, what we take to be our individual subjective responses to literature are really products of the interpretive community to which we belong. By interpretive community he means, those who shares the interpretive strategies always result from various sorts of institutionalized assumptions ( assumptions established such as schools, churches and colleges) about what makes a text a piece of literature. Social Reader Response Theory doesn't offer us a new way to read texts. Nor does it promote any form of literary criticism that already exists.

[NB: Remember, these five variations are just an offshoot of Reader Response Theory, so,they seem to be similar in bird's eye view, but slight difference is there.]

Reference & for further reading

• Critical Theory Today A user-friendly guide   by Lois Tyson
• A New Approach to Literary Theory and Criticism  by R.S Malik & Jagdish Batra
• English Literary Criticism and Theory  by M.S Nagarajan. 
• A Glossary of literary Terms  by M.H Abrams. 
• Theory into Practice,an Introduction to Literary Criticism  by Ann.B. Dobie    

Absurd Drama: An overview

Absurd Drama

The term 'Absurd' had widely used in relation to Music before it gets popularized in the  sphere of literature. In musical discourse absurd denotes to those musical notes which are out of harmony. Similarly, in literature Absurd means those writings which are out of logic, reason and all conventions. The Theatre of The Absurd was emerged in France during the 1950s. The term coined by the theatre critic Martin Esslin. This type of drama is based on the twentieth century ideas like Existentialism, which looked upon man as an isolated creature in the world that had no inherent value or meaning.

Absurdism was the central concern in post world war literature. The term gets popularized after the work 'The Myth of Sisyphus' by Albert Camus. Absurdity can be frequently associated with feelings of loss, purposelessness and bewilderment. To such feeling the practitioners of Absurd Theatre give ample expression often leaving the audience perplexed in the face of disjointed, meaningless or repetitious dialogues, incomprehensible behaviour and plot which deny all notion of logical and realistic development. Absurd plays illustrate humans as a doll in the hands of destiny or menaced by invisible outside forces. This style of writing was first popularized by Eugene Ionesco in his play "The Bald Soprano" and also applied to the works of certain dramatists who were alive in the 1950s including Samuel Beckett, Arthur Adamov, Eugene Ionesco, Jean Genet, Harold Pinter, Luigi Pirandello, Tom Stoppard and Edward Albee. Their works primarily discarded the traditional elements of drama such as a linear plot, realistic dialogue and recognizable setting.

A typical absurd drama never fulfills the audience's expectation. As we can see in waiting for Godot, audience were eagerly expecting the arrival of Godot, but that never happens in the play. The two tramps Vladimir and Estragon were waiting in a wasteland for the arrival of him. It becomes futile.

Features of Absurd drama

• Absurd drama represents the disorientation of living in an unpleasant and hostile universe.
• It violated all the existing notions regarding drama, thus it is highly experimental and radical.
• Inexpressibility dominates in the actions, language becomes the tool of non-communication.
• Element of dystopia and dark humour.
• The actions inan absurd drama do not unravel a story but presents a pattern of images designed to reflect the perplexity of human's existence in an incomprehensible world.
• The plays often delineate the emptiness and nothingness of life. For instance Beckett's Waiting for Godot revolves around the absence of a character named Godot. While, in Ionesco's Ameede, or how to get rid of it, A playwright and his wife are faced with the problem of trying to get rid of a steadily growing corpse.
• The characters are depicted as being aimless and lost in a world that is beyond their understanding. They are incapable of sensible and rational thought and are often portrayed as autonomous, who can speak only in cliches. They are usually Flat characters.
• slapstick humour is often a part of absurd drama.
• Reticence and silence speak more than words, dramatists like Pinter often use ellipses or dashes for important parts of dialogue.
• Sometimes the characters are depicted as being victimized and intimidated by some external force or person. For instance in Pinter's Birthday Party (1957), Stanley is menaced by Goldberg and McCann.

                                       

Works Cited

•  The Book of literature, Big ideas simply explained
• The Oxford Companion to English Literature 
• A Glossary of Literary Terms by M.H Abrams
• A Companion to Literary Forms by Padmaja Ashok         

  

Deconstruction for beginners

Decontruction

 A school of literary theory and philosophy was inaugurated by Jacques Derrida, usually aligned with Poststructuralism, to indicate that it emerged after structuralism to emphasize on the decentring and destabilizing structures. Poststructuralism is a late 20th Century movement in philosophy and literary criticism, could be acknowledged as an umbrella term used to denote all the radical theories which opposed structuralism. Structuralism put forwarded the idea that there is a definite structure of meaning beneath the surface level of signs. Where as poststructuralists blatantly discard the possibility of any single definite meaning. Thus, poststructuralism is an outright reaction to the views of structuralism. 

Influenced by the concept of Deconstruction, which exposes the deep-seated contradictions in a text. Poststructuralism as an intellectual project attempt to articulate new theories regarding the meaning and interpretation. The notion of Deconstruction was primarily based on three books Speech and Phenomena, Of Grammatology and Writing and Difference by the phenomenal French philosopher Jacques Derrida(1930-2004).

According to Derrida, all suppositions about the absolute meaning in language are incorrect. Signifiers often do not point to a signified but to other signifiers. Even binary oppositions can not permit fixed meanings but only relative ones, both are complementary for generating meaning. He adapted the term from Martin Heidegger, a German philosopher.  It focuses the complex relationship in language or the difficulty of language to convey the right meaning.

it can be treated as the controversial way of reading a text, as it aims at showing how texts dismantled or rather contradict themselves. and thereby exposing the instability of meaning which every text carries. This instability results from the endless chain of meanings which a word is capable of generating.

Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text. But a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself. Practitioners of Deconstruction refused the fixed formula of analyzing a text. they give emphasis to the openness of meaning. Thus, Deconstruction analyses the new scopes of reading that is inherent in the text and it also rigorously rethink about the possibilities of language. Derrida does this in his much anthologized paper, "Structure Sign and Play in the Discourse of Human Sciences". 

Deconstruction is a radical unsettling of all earlier movements in literature. it is the most philosophically oriented and the most theorized movement we have known so far. there are numerous things the Deconstruction teaches us. it adds to our understanding of literature with a greater sense of critical perception. For Derrida language is not a reliable mode of communication, it is fluid and slippery. Once it is written the play is possible.

Consider for example, the following sentence : 'Time flies like an arrow'. Most of us are familiar with the older saying, and we know it means that time passes quickly.

Time (Noun) flies (Verb) like an arrow(Adv. clause)    = Time passes quickly

If we rethink about the further possibilities of meanings, we can undeniably say that this sentence could also mean that time moves in one direction, or straight ahead, because that's how arrows move. But what would happen if we thought of the first word of the sentence as an imperative mode - telling us to do something and the second word indicates a kind of insect:

Time (verb) flies (obj.) like an arrow(Adv. clause)   = calculate the speed of flies as you'd time an arrow's flight.

Again, what would happen if we thought of the first two words of the sentence represent a kind of insect - time flies(like fruit flies) and the third word as if it were as a form of the verb to like. then the sentence would tell us the emotional life of certain kinds of insects.

Time flies (noun)  like (verb) an arrow (obj.)   =  time flies are fond of arrows.

this exercise shows how, without changing a word, a single sentence can have several meanings.

Deconstruction, however, asks us to look at the sentence's ambiguities even when the sentence seems at first glance, as clear and specific as this one does.

if we read the celebrated poem  "The Road not taken" by Robert Frost, the title itself supplies the major difference in the text. There are two roads: the road not taken and the road taken. it can mean that the poem is about the road which the speaker did not take. and another possibility is that the poem is about the road which the speaker took, was not taken by others.

similarly the Poem "Church Going" by Philip Larkin indicates at once the process of moving into the church and also fading away the belief of the church.this is how a text shows the word play.

Apart from Derrida other practitioners of Deconstruction were Harold Bloom, Paul De Man, Hillis Miller and Jeoffrey Hartman.

Reference & for further reading

• Critical Theory Today A user-friendly guide   by Lois Tyson
• A New Approach to Literary Theory and Criticism  by R.S Malik & Jagdish Batra
• English Literary Criticism and Theory  by M.S Nagarajan.
• From Text to Theory  by Pramod K Nayar.
• contemporary literary and Cultural Theory by Pramod K Nayar.
• A Glossary of literary Terms  by M.H Abrams.
• Theory into Practice,an Introduction to Literary Criticism  by Ann.B. Dobie