
I'm going to interrupt the Hawaii travelogue to talk our Cedar City trip last weekend. It was a brief trip, just two nights, for the Utah Shakespearean Festival. Usually we like to stay longer and do more hiking and see more plays, but the Hawaii trip ate up a lot of our vacation. Also, we really missed our friends, the Billings, who weren't able to make it with us.
We saw King Lear. This has been my favorite play for about five years now. I fell in love with it in my graduate Shakespeare class, where we focused on the Puritan influence on Shakespeare's plays and were required to read the original quarto and folio play versions from Early English Books Online (EEBO). King Lear is generally to considered to be in Shakespeare's top four best tragedies (with Macbeth, Othello, and Hamlet being the other three), and for me it generates emotion like no other play does. Each of these four tragedies seems more focused on the psychology of the human mind than the outward action or plot, which also happens to be reason that I don't care that Shakespeare borrowed almost all of his plots. His characters, and their ways of expressing themselves (including what John Keats called negative capability), are what truly matters. In addition to this type of play reading/hearing, King Lear provokes emotions in me that seem outside reason and analysis.
Take the first scene, for example. In the past, I've been annoyed by Cordelia and her refusal to play to her elderly father's wishes to publicly proclaim her affection for him. But the way this was played Saturday, I believed more that she believed at that time that she could not utter vain falsehoods—that it was too much against her nature. And Lear himself is another issue: I have a friend who is amazed I can sympathize with Lear after his hubris is so blatantly exposed and wrath so easily kindled against those who love him most. I mean, in the first five minutes he's disowned the only child who loves him and banished his most faithful counselor. But it's because of these fatal errors, and the way Cordelia and Kent forgive him so easily and so completely, that I gain hope for the general situation, and it is that hope that is shattered at the end. There's nothing as depressing as saying that even forgiveness, loyalty, and understanding won't be enough in the end.
I think what makes King Lear so appealing is the way that characters who are so unlike me are able to draw me in and make me empathize with them. Edmund is very funny, and I feel bad for him after hearing Gloucester talk about his illegitimate condition in such a mocking way. Goneril and Regan have some legitimate reason to fear their father's rash judgments and orders, Lear and Gloucester both trust and disown too easily, and the others are just trying reclaim a situation gone completely wrong.
When I watched the Ian Holm version at my professor's house years ago, the most emotional scene for me was the last one, where Lear brings in his beloved daughter and seeks to see her revived. The utter despair of that moment when he realizes that she will no longer live: "Never, never, never, never, never!" was almost too much for me.

In the performance last Saturday, another moment in the play surprised me with its emotional density. It's where Lear and Gloucester meet in their torn-down states and finally recognize each other. I had been watching carefully to see how Gloucester's role was treated. He was played by the same actor I'd seen play Falstaff in Merry Wives of Windsor last year, and I was wondering how such a good comic could pull off this tragic character. He was amazing. The agony I was in as I watched him get his eyes poked out, and the sorry state of his blindness and attempted suicide, combined with the caring of his disguised son Edgar, made Gloucester's condition so sweetly sad. And at last, when Lear and Gloucester, these two great ruined men, recognized each other in their horrible state and came together in understanding, it was truly an amazing experience to witness.
