that the excessive amount of realistic violence in the play—far greater than in any of Bond’s previous dramas and never equaled in any play since—considerably alienated reviewers and public alike when the play was first performed". Conversely, Ronald Bryden of The New York Times reported in 1974 that Lear had by then become a "standard play in the European repertory" and garnered acclaim from critics, but that Royal Court audiences reacted unfavorably. Richard Scharine dubbed the events of the play "grotesque and difficult to believe." Charles Spencer wrote in The Daily Telegraph, "Unlike Shakespeare, Bond has a tendency to preach...his play lacks the richness and compassion of the Shakespeare original". In 1973, Mel Gussow of The New York Times derided the ending as "sentimental and unaffecting", and argued that Lear "is so determinedly a thesis play, an intellectual exercise, that there is scant consideration for drama". Gussow stated that the play "lacks transitions and credibility. [...] Bond has allowed his philosophy to overcome his artistry." Walter Kerr compared it unfavorably to Saved (1965) in the same paper, and stated that the playwright "has here become so obsessed with the idea of violence that he has neglected to give it plausible, or even theatrically coherent, organization. [...] I do not necessarily quarrel with what he says [about violence in society]. The trouble with “Lear” is that he is saying it: his characters aren't, his narrative isn't. Everything is imposed by the author from the outset; the ' people' on stage can only do his bidding.mindlessly,’ without personality or so much as rationalized purpose." However, Benedict Nightingale wrote, "The play’s horrors. . . have their perhaps overemphatic place in plot and theme: they also, you feel, reflect authentic pain and anger....Yet another horror, you say; but not one that quite eradicates the impression of human nobility, briefly and precariously achieved." A critic for The Observer dubbed it "one of the most powerful plays to have emerged in years...Although its tragic scale is unimaginable except in the theatre, it is not primarily a play for 'theatregoers', but is meant for anyone concerned with our apparently hell-bent course towards self-destruction." In Comparative Drama, Leslie Smith argued that "Bond sets up in his play a real, creative dialogue with the original, out of which comes a theatrical experience of impressive power, a Lear as seen by one of the most original and versatile dramatists of