Critique of Bookrag’s Analysis of King Lear

While online help-for-students websites have become increasingly popular with the explosion of the internet, nothing guarantees that the people writing the analyses are qualified for the job, or right about what they say. Sites like Bookrags.com can be great in a pinch, and help remembering details, but mostly shouldn’t be depended on for high level English courses. The Bookrags plot summary of King Lear touched on most of the important points, but misinterpreted and forgot a few key things. Similar to the summary, the character analyses on Bookrags was useful for a beginner, but much too superficial and incorrect for use by an AP or college student. Bookrags seems useful for brief refreshing of the memory or a quick fix for being behind on reading, but is no substitute for the real King Lear.
Bookrag’s has both a free version of information, and an expensive “platinum” edition. Though the platinum edition may be better, that’s not really the website that’s a company product, so here today we’ll talk about the free online text. Bookrags claims that Gloucester heads the main subplot, while it’s really Edmund controlling that situation with Gloucester unhappily brought along for the ride. They also noted that Burgundy was rejected by Cordelia and France “woos her well enough to earn her hand,” while I remember that Burgundy only wanted her for her money/position and she was lucky to get France after her disinheritance. I understand that it’s a brief synopsis, but they begin talking about Kent after Lear is kicked out, acting like the reader knows who he is, without any background. Luckily I’ve read the book so I know his story, but to someone using this resource as their first touch upon the subject they would be lost. Though the plot summary gave some general ideas of what occurs in the play, it also misses some details and comes to some incorrect conclusions about what really happens.
Character lists on online help-for-students sites can be hugely helpful, especially for analysis of a specific character and when trying to remember book details for assignments such as AP test book review prep sheets. Bookrags, however, gives some false ideas about several of the characters; mostly from the reviewer delving too deep into Shakespeare’s meaning. The King Lear description begins by describing him as an “All-powerful King of Britain who simultaneously tries to manage being the leader of a major country and the head of a major family.” He’s not all-powerful for 99% of the story, actually he’s the opposite, and being the head of a major family has very little connection with either the truth or the meaning of the story. They also claim that Cordelia is the “smartest, bravest, and most honest of the three daughters,” which, while being predominantly true, isn’t backed up by facts. How does she demonstrate her great smarts? By untactfully refusing to pledge her love for her father, by getting disowned, by losing in battle, by getting outsmarted by Edmund and executed? Most of the conclusions they make about Cordelia are true, but the smart comment simply wasn’t thought through enough to be credible. Bookrags throws great weight to the parallel between Gloucester’s and Lear’s situations, but despite having a few similarities, are nowhere near the foils that the character list makes them out to be. Also Oswald’s and Cornwall’s characters are delved into deeply, and unnecessarily considering they’re pretty minor and static characters, whereas the analysis of the Fool is blaringly inadequate. The concept of the character list has great potential, but Bookrag’s execution of the idea was misguided and underdeveloped.
Help-for-student websites like Bookrags are become more and more popular because of their brief, superficial quality. That same quality, however, makes their value as a literary resource pretty low, especially because the reviews are written anonymously by the Bookrags staff, not by any renowned professor or expert on Shakespeare. The way to use resources like this one is to skeptically read the reviews, knowing that what conclusions they make are not necessarily true, and only use it for general information and superficial plot summaries.