Review of Fool by Christopher Moore

It's Monty Python meets William Shakespeare in Fool, a novel by Christopher Moore (Harper Collins 2009).  Moore retells the story of Shakespeare's King Lear from the perspective of Lear's court Fool, Pocket.  In doing so, Moore takes certain liberties with the plot, making the erstwhile insignificant Fool into a scheming behind-the-scenes political conspiratorial starter of wars and maker of kings.

The narrative style chosen by the American-born Moore is filled with amusing pseudo-British slang and spoof in addition to over-the-top lewdness bordering on outright pornography.  Shakespeare would have had a good laugh, though, I am sure--he was equally bawdy if much more subtle and witty.  Moore also mixes in some hilarious anachronisms and parts of the plots of other Shakespeare plays.

If you chose to read Fool, do not skip the informative Author's Note at the end entitled "You Cheeky Git."  There is some fascinating reading there about the history of King "Leir" (as the name was historically spelled) and the anachronisms to be found in the Shakespeare version of the story.  The Note also may make some readers feel better about the happy (well, happier) ending of the Moore version, as apparently there are other extant versions of the Lear/Leir story that share that particular plot point.

Review of The Tempest by William Shakespeare

I recently had the displeasure of reading a previously undiscovered (for me) Shakespeare play that was, to be charitable, subpar for the Bard (The Winter’s Tale, see my review http://stevesofgrass.blogspot.com/2016/03/review-of-winters-tale-by-william.html).  So, it was with a healthy bit of skepticism that I picked up yet another previously undiscovered (again, for me) Shakespeare play, The Tempest.  My edition was published by the Folger Shakespeare Library, edited by Barbara Mowat and Paul Werstine.

While not a complete stinker like The Winter’s Tale, I still found The Tempest disappointing--certainly not Shakespeare’s best effort.  The main character, the betrayed and exiled Duke cum sorcerer Prospero, is the main source of this disappointment (all plays-on-words intended).  Shakespeare could not seem to make up his mind about Prospero’s motivation or basic character, and the play really does suffer as a result.

Prospero does not hesitate to use his own beloved daughter to the furtherance of his vengeance, even though it causes her psychological torment--this does not do much to make him loveable.  Using his magical powers, he enslaves an innocent island native, Caliban (an anagram cannibal--well, almost), as well as an innocent spirit and makes them do his bidding--the former hard labor, the latter paranormal pranks against his enemies.  This makes him unlikeable, even despicable, despite any sympathy for his unjust betrayal and banishment.

There might have been a chance for Prospero to become a sympathetic anti-hero or even a likeable villain, but then, bafflingly, Shakespeare has Prospero abandon all of his revenge schemes, forgive his betrayers, allow plotting assassins to go unpunished, and tops this off by having him marry his daughter literally to the first man she meets.  Pick a side, Shakespeare! 

Anyway, if you have a chance to see this one, it might not be worth your time.  I’m not sure it would have been worth my time to read it, but for my son having to read it for a college lit course.