Richard III

By -
Richard III, by William Shakespeare

Richard III, as everyone already knows, is Shakespeare's most villainous villain, embracing evil and having people murdered left and right until he comes to a well-deserved end in battle.  And as a cartoon villain he's pretty great; he thinks of everything and tirelessly makes everything terrible for everyone around him, even his poor old mother.  He even tries to marry the older sister of the princes he had killed!

Evil Richard III
I really liked the prominent roles that the women played towards the end.  Possibly because there were no men left, having all been murdered by that time, but the ladies have these wonderful scenes where they lament their losses and blame Richard III for everything--just as he deserves.

I did find this play quite difficult to read, just because there are all these characters, all with titles that make it tricky to keep track of them, and anyway which Edward or Richard or Elizabeth are we talking about again?  I would very much like to watch a performance--I should have looked at the DVDs when I was at the library yesterday.

Only averagely awful Richard III
Having read The Daughter of Time and followed the surprise excavation of Richard's body last year, I'm pretty familiar with the historical background and reasons why Shakespeare made his character so mustache-twirlingly rotten.  Richmond, the glorious hero of the play and savior of all England, became King Henry VII, founder of the Tudor dynasty and Queen Elizabeth's very own grandpa.  He was in fact an awful person, but then so was pretty much everyone else who clawed their way to a contested throne.  You don't get that kind of job without being pretty horrible.  I'm sure the real-life Richard III was awful too, even though he didn't really go around scheming in iambic pentameter.  

And my answer to The Question is, yeah, I totally think he had the princes bumped off, Josephine Tey's defense notwithstanding.


Comments

  1. SophiaJanuary 29, 2014 at 5:39 PM

    I haven't read Richard III but have read other books dealing with him... I suppose I should read it sometime, but I haven't had much free time in January to indulge in the Shakespeare theme as much as I would have liked.

    Oh, and I agree with you wholeheartedly on The Question! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. SophiaJanuary 29, 2014 at 5:39 PM

    I haven't read Richard III but have read other books dealing with him... I suppose I should read it sometime, but I haven't had much free time in January to indulge in the Shakespeare theme as much as I would have liked.

    Oh, and I agree with you wholeheartedly on The Question! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nancy LeekJanuary 29, 2014 at 6:57 PM

    The library has a BBC production of Richard III which I thoroughly enjoyed. Much better than just reading it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Amateur Reader (Tom)January 30, 2014 at 6:21 AM

    As for movies, this play presents an opportunity. Have you seen Al Pacino's documentary "Looking for Richard"? I would actually go to that before any other adaptation. I wish Pacino had made one of those for every Elizabethan play.

    ReplyDelete
  5. JeanJanuary 30, 2014 at 7:40 AM

    OK, I'll get that library movie and look for the Pacino documentary. I've never heard of that at all--thanks Tom.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousJanuary 30, 2014 at 7:20 PM

    I don't think he had the kids bumped off BUT I do think his means of keeping little Edward off the throne were on the shady side. I am okay with it though because I think having a little kid as the king would have been a hot mess for England, and I can see how Richard III could reasonably feel he would do a better job at being the king than a bunch of Woodville relations.

    ...I may or may not own a framed print of that portrait of Richard III. WHO CAN SAY.

    ReplyDelete
  7. JeanJanuary 30, 2014 at 10:15 PM

    Jenny, you crack me up! I totally believe that you have a framed Richard III around the house. Your theory is also possible, I admit.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

I'd love to know what you think, so please comment!

Popular posts from this blog

Dewey Readathon post

By -
Image
Good morning!  I am not actually awake yet, because it's 5am and I need my sleep, and I will be mostly unable to join in the readathon until this afternoon.  But here is the post where I will make updates. I'm supposed to answer these questions: 1) What fine part of the world are you reading from today?  Sunny California!  Emphasis on the "sunny"--after a nice cool spring it's in the 90s now.  I live in the rural northern part above Sacramento that everyone forgets about--we hold 2% of the total population of California. 2) Which book in your stack are you most looking forward to?  It's a smorgasbord of delight!  I don't even know. 3) Which snack are you most looking forward to?  ...you think I'm well-prepared, don't you?  I have a bag of sunflower seeds/Craisins/almond M&Ms, and I'm thinking quite seriously about treating myself to Indian food tonight.  That's all I've got. 4) Tell us a little something about yourself!
Read more

The Four Ages of Poetry

By -
Image
  "The Four Ages of Poetry," by Thomas Love Peacock I am becoming fond of Thomas Love Peacock.  Besides his unbeatable name, he was a lot of fun.  Peacock was a minor literary figure of the early 19th century; he tried his hand at poetry but mainly succeeded in satire.  I read his short novel Nightmare Abbey last year, but at the time I didn't know that the young hero of the story, Scythrop, was modeled on Peacock's good friend Percy Shelley.  He and Shelley were quite close and Peacock was the executor of Shelley's will. Thomas Love Peacock Percy Bysshe Shelley "The Four Ages of Poetry," a tongue-in-cheek essay on the history and development of poetry, was published in 1820 in a new magazine called Literary Miscellany , which promptly died.  It would probably have been completely obscure and unknown--it nearly is anyway--but for Shelley.  Peacock sent a copy to his friend, who I guess didn't really have much of a sense of
Read more

Howl's Moving Castle

By -
Image
1986 edition It's Diana Wynne Jones Day!  Kristen at We Be Reading, our host, decreed that today we would discuss Howl's Moving Castle.   And she has a great think-out on the different kinds of magic found in the story.  Throwing several different kinds of magic into a world or a story seems to have been a bit of a DWJ trademark. I can remember quite well where Howl's Moving Castle lived on the shelf in the library where I grew up.  It was not the first DWJ book I read (that was Witch's Business ) but it was one of the early ones.  I must have found it right after it was published in 1986.  As a result, I practically have it memorized -- I could not tell you how many times I've read it.   Even so, I enjoy it anew every time, and I still have new realizations about what's going on.  (Though possibly I have the same ones over and over, and just forget!  My kids tell me so sometimes.) When I first met my husband, he had kind of forgotten reading for fun, a
Read more