Critical Study of Edward Bond’s Lear

Edward Bond (1934–) stands as one of the most provocative voices in post-war British theatre. Born into a working-class family in North London and shaped by the visceral trauma of World War II bombings and the stark realities of military service in Vienna, Bond developed a worldview that refused to turn a blind eye to human suffering. He viewed the world not as inherently chaotic, but as a place where violence was structurally engineered by society.

Bond first gained notoriety with his 1965 play Saved, which shocked audiences with the graphic stoning of a baby. However, this violence was never gratuitous; it was an urgent political statement. As a committed socialist, Bond’s work serves as a fierce indictment of capitalism and class oppression. His 1971 masterpiece, Lear, is not merely a rewrite of Shakespeare; it is a radical intervention into the myths of power, authority, and resignation.

The Philosophy: Rational Theatre vs. The Absurd

To understand Lear, one must first grasp Bond’s concept of 'Rational Theatre.' Bond vehemently opposed the Theatre of the Absurd (represented by playwrights like Beckett), arguing that it preached a dangerous pessimism. If life is meaningless, then social change is impossible. Bond rejects this. He believes that human problems have rational causes and, therefore, rational solutions. He employs what he calls 'aggro-effects'—scenes of extreme, shocking violence—to jolt the audience out of passivity. The goal is not to entertain, but to force the viewer to analyse the social structures that make such violence inevitable. For Bond, art is a social act; the writer must be an activist, and the audience must leave the theatre questioning their own reality.

Summary of the play

Act I introduce us to a tyrannical Lear who is obsessed with building a massive Wall to keep out "enemies." He sacrifices his people to build it, executing workers without hesitation. His daughters, Bodice and Fontanelle, eventually overthrow him. However, their rebellion is personal, not ideological; they are just as cruel as their father, brutally torturing Lear’s advisor, Warrington, to protect their own power.

Act II details the counter-revolution. Lear’s other daughter, Cordelia (reimagined here as a guerrilla fighter), leads an uprising against her sisters. During this time, Lear is imprisoned and put on a show trial. In one of the play’s most famous scenes, he witnesses the autopsy of his daughter Fontanelle. Later, in a bid to make him "politically ineffective," the new regime clinically removes Lear's eyes.

Act III presents the tragic irony of the revolution. Cordelia, now in power, becomes a Stalinist-type dictator who refuses to tear down the Wall. Lear, now blind but finally "seeing" the truth, tries to dismantle the Wall himself. He is shot and killed, but his death is an act of active resistance, not passive resignation.

Critical Analysis

1. The Wall as a Political Allegory

The central metaphor of the play is the Wall. It represents the paranoia of the modern state, the division of people into "us" and "them," and the futility of defence through oppression. Lear builds it to protect the people, but it ultimately imprisons them. The tragedy is cyclical: Lear builds it, his daughters maintain it, and the revolutionary Cordelia expands it. Bond argues that as long as the structure of power remains (the Wall), the ideology of the leader creates the same result: suffering.

2. The subversion of Cordelia

Bond’s most shocking deviation from Shakespeare is the character of Cordelia. She is no longer the symbol of divine forgiveness. Instead, she represents the failure of violent revolution. She has been raped and her husband murdered; her trauma transforms her into a ruthless pragmatist. By deciding to keep the Wall, she proves that a change in leadership without a change in social philosophy changes nothing. She becomes the very tyrant she fought against.

3. Violence as a Path to Insight

The violence in Lear—such as the knitting-needle torture or the scientific blinding—serves a specific purpose. It strips away the glamour of power. The pivotal moment of anagnorisis (recognition) occurs during Fontanelle’s autopsy. Lear looks inside his daughter and sees no "evil beast," only human organs. He realizes that her cruelty was not innate (original sin) but socially constructed—by him, and by the violence of their upbringing. This is the core of Bond’s materialism: we are made, not born, violent.

4. The Rejection of Retreat

The character of the Gravedigger’s Boy and his Ghost represent the temptation of
escapism. The Boy lives a pastoral, innocent life, but he is easily destroyed by the soldiers. His Ghost haunts Lear, urging him to stay quiet and wither away in peace.

Bond argues that this innocence is a lie; you cannot hide from politics. Lear eventually allows the Ghost to die, symbolizing his rejection of escapism. Unlike Shakespeare’s Lear, who hopes to "sing like birds in the cage," Bond’s Lear realizes he must act. His final gesture—digging at the Wall with a shovel—is futile in terms of physics, but monumental in terms of morality. He dies not as a tragic victim, but as a political agent attempting to break the cycle.

Conclusion

Edward Bond’s Lear is a demanding text that refuses to comfort its audience. It suggests that sanity in a violent world is not about adapting to the status quo, but about recognizing the madness of the system and attempting to change it. Through the blind king, Bond offers a glimpse of hope: that while the Wall is strong, the human capacity for rational understanding and resistance is stronger.