SHAKESPEARE is my Homeboy

King Lear Criticism

Kott, Jan. "King Lear or Endgame" from Shakespeare Our Contemporary.

Kott's essay suggests an absurdist reading of King Lear, which he describes as "grotesque," rather than the traditional interpretation of the play through the tragic conventions. Kott argues that "Lear is ridiculous, naïve and stupid. When he goes mad, he can arouse only compassion, never pity and terror" (Kott 130).

In the first part of his essay, Kott outlines the relationship between the grotesque and tragedy. Kott argues that "in this new theatre…the tragic element has been superceded by grotesque" (Kott 130). Kott defines grotesque as "a criticism of the absolute in the name of frail human experience." (Kott 132). Further he writes that in the grotesque, "the absolute is absurd" (Kott 133). One of my criticisms of Kott's essay is that he doesn't offer a more complete definition of the term. Kott goes on to interpret classical tragedy, such as Oedipus, in terms of absurdism and game theory.

In Section II, Kott offers a reading King Lear IV.6 as a pantomine, rather than a scene of poetic realism. He describes Gloucester as "a clown" (Kott 147). It is the theatrical nature of the scene which lends itself to the grotesque, according to Kott's argument. Kott goes on to describe the way in which a reading of the grotesque in Beckett's Endgame can inform our understanding of Lear, since both plays address the themes of death and the possible absence of God.

In Section III, Kott describes King Lear in terms of Falkiewicz' image of peeling back an onion (Kott 157). Kott argues that Shakespeare and contemporary drama both share a fascination with this type of "cruel and mocking" search for meaning, and the possibility of ultimate meaninglessness.