As it turns out, of course, Regan and Goneril show their true colours fairly soon and refuse to take care of Lear and end up plotting against each other for sole control of the kingdom.
In Shakespeare's version of events a third character, Edward, the illegitimate son of the Earl of Gloucester, is the one who contrives to set the two daughters against each other by feigning love for both of them. In the version of events as narrated by Pocket, Fool (or Court Jester as we'd call him) to the court of King Lear, he's the puppet master behind the scenes doing his best to manipulate events.
Unfortunately too many of his puppets have minds of their own and his plans quickly go awry. Initially he had hoped to ensure that Cordelia, his favourite among the three sisters, would remain at home in England and not be married off to a foreign prince, and when that fails he's left scrambling to find ways to make things right.
While Moore adheres pretty much to the storyline of Lear as Shakespeare wrote it, it doesn't stop him from adding in a few extras from other plays as well. There's a vengeful ghost, shades of Hamlet (because there's always a "bloody ghost"), as well as a couple of guest appearances from the three witches of Macbeth, Parsley, Sage, and Rosemary, ("What no Thyme" said Kent. "We've the got the time if you've got the inclination") to help propel the plot along.
Of course the major difference between the original and Moore's version is the tone; instead of Lear the tragic hero undone by his flaw of vanity as the main theme we are treated to a ribald adventure along the lines of The Decameron.
In most instances, when a modern writer attempts to satirize Shakespeare they fall flat, because no matter what they do their efforts pale in comparison to the original. What separates Moore's effort from any of the others that I've read is the fact he is able to reproduce the tone and spirit of the original in his use of language. Even though he is writing in mainly modern vernacular when his characters resort to bawdy language he draws upon the vast and colourful vocabulary of Elizabethan England giving them a verisimilitude lacking in most modern attempts at creating characters from this time period.
Article comments
1 - Dissapointed
No, what Christopher Moore did was just use someone else's plot because he can't think of one himself. He just punched it up with some jokes. The characters are one-dimensional and horrible. Pocket? Drool? I do not give one shit about any of them.
I am a long-time fan of Christopher Moore. He is capable of so much better than this. Ever since "The Stuipdest Angel," the quality has been going down in the crapper. A Dirty Job was so out there - basically an interesting idea, but it went to pot with all those dumb-ass animal skeletons and things. You Suck was HORRIBLE. It sucked so very much. I loved Bloodsucking Fiends, but the sequel felt like he had waited until the last minute to write it, and then wrote it the night before it was due like a kid in high school. It was slap-dash, it was AWFUL. All of the thoughtfulness that I expect from Christopher Moore is absent in his most recent novels.
Fool is a joke, and not a funny one. It is so terribly bad I can't even bring myself to read it. I have to FORCE myself to read this. (And I liked Love Nun, Lust Lizard, all of his other werid ones because I liked the CHARACTERS).
I mean, where was his editor? Why did his publishers accept this novel?
He says he doesn't do rewrites, and it is very clear from his recent work. At best, this is a first draft. Clearly a waste of money, time and effort.
2 - Allison
There is no "Edward" in King Lear.