Whom Do I Love Moore?

*This post may or may not contain spoilers.

I have recently read a series of reviews regarding Christopher Moore's novel, Fool, and discovered that many of the readers had met an unfortunate consensus: they had despised this interpretation of Shakespeare's famous tragedy.  These critics described this interpretation as "vulgar," and "written in bad taste," yet I found myself enjoying every minute of it.  Maybe my humor is a bit immature, or maybe I have no censor when it comes to what is considered "vulgar" or "inappropriate."  Either way, I found Fool to be both witty and creative.  I was immediately drawn to the character Pocket, and appreciated him for his sharp tongue and tenacity.

Shakespeare's Fool made a few cameos throughout the course of King Lear, but failed to maintain a stable appearance in the drama.  Moore's Fool, however, was not only the protagonist of the novel, but the narrator.  This is Lear told from the point of view of a ridiculous court jester.  He gave Shakespeare's loyal audience what they had wanted--more of the Fool.  Pocket was everywhere.  He was telling the story (as mentioned previously).  He was a witness to the events that occurred.  He knew the Castle Lear inside and out, and he knew every secret that the royal family wanted to keep hidden.  Moore demonstrates an obvious respect toward the Bard through his interpretation, but does not hesitate while putting his own spin on the plot.  I am ashamed to admit this (due to the fact that Shakespeare is a literary genius), but I preferred Fool's ending to that of Lear's.  I never really saw the point of hanging the Fool in the original, and would have been rather disappointed if Pocket were hung after growing so attached to him.  Bravo Mr. Moore, for your interpretation of Lear was excellent.

I am a sucker for sarcasm and satire (hence my love of James Thurber and Stephen Colbert).  This being said, I absolutely adored Pocket.  Everything from his snarky remarks, such as "love needs room to grow, like a rose, or a tumor," to the equally sarcastic raven that resides by the castle, drew me into a literary trance.  By "literary trance," I am referring to the state in which a person is so enthralled with a book, that they cannot focus on anything other than the book itself.  Moore finds comedy in this original tragedy, a feat which must be very difficult to accomplish.  This accomplishment is part of the reason that I enjoyed Fool as much as I did.  While I very much enjoyed this aspect of the novel, others found it overbearing and idiotic--and not a good kind of idiotic.  Mr. Moore took a risk by throwing "bathroom humor" into his adaptation of a master work, which could be received in one of two ways.  On one end of the spectrum, the audience (myself included) recognized this humor as being characteristic of Moore's style of writing.  On the other end, the audience was rather disappointed with the use of this rather raunchy humor.  I found myself rather disappointed with the reviews regarding the latter end of the spectrum.  I enjoyed Moore's interpretation so much, that I took this negative criticism personally.  At the end of the day, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  My opinion, however, is the right one.