Customer Reviews

King Lear: A Verse Translation in English (Enjoy Shakespeare)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Please see my review for Richmond's modern and sophisticated translation of Shakespeare's Twelfth Night, which also applies to his translation of Shakespeare's Lear. Richmond has dutifully contrasted the expert conflicting views, compared folios and quartos, and studied the scholars' and actors' traditions regarding this work. Even in modernized English, King Lear is one of Shakespeare's most difficult works, and its difficulty survives into this new traslation. But the burden of understanding is greatly lessened for students and initiates of the Master. The price is reasonable, and the benefits invaluable.

If you've been waiting until Shakespeare became more accessible, yet hoping that a modern version would contain all of the complexity of the original, then Richmond's translation provides you an ideal opportunity to jump in and enjoy Shakespeare.

A true Shakespeare devotee will insist on the original text, not the 'adulterated' or translated version Kent Richard provides. But some of us need help. While I've loved Shakespeare for years,I must admit that much of the original material went over my head. Sure, I've been able to follow the basic story line and grasp the essential traits of the major characters, but many details escaped me. I sensed there was great beauty and profound wisdom in the play without being able to articulate why. This version of King Lear really helped me put the pieces of the puzzle together. Now I can see how the minor characters fit into the overall theme. Now, I can go back and read the original and understand what all the characters are talking about.

I really enjoyed this version of King Lear and look forward to trying some of the author's other translations as well (I hope Hamlet and Merchant of Venice are on his to-do list.) This version of King Lear is not a replacement for the real thing; it's an aid to appreciating the real thing.

While this version may prove useful for comparative study, the so-called "translation" represents a diminished version of the text, both in rhythm and texture, despite claims to the contrary.

Furthermore, a number of word substitutions reflect unacknowledged biases. How could they not? This is an interpretation, not a translation. The original is written in perfectly good English, however much some of it may be considered archaic. But the appreciating the aesthetic qualities of older works of art is a distinct part of the pleasure and educational value of reading them.