Sunday, November 9, 2008
Richard III
One of the most interesting things that it seems I, and others who have commented on this blog, have found about Richard III is that so many people believe everything he said, against all evidence to the contrary. In a play that is all about betrayal and killing, this seems to me to send a message contrary to what goes on in the play: that people, for better or worse, want to believe in the good inside a person. We see it first with Lady Anne, but afterwards with many characters, including Queen Elizabeth. It is very odd to me that he was always believed, and the only conclusion I can come to is that Shakespeare was trying to make a point on human nature. He wanted the audience to hope, along with the other characters, that smooth-tongued Richard was redeemable, making it a greater letdown when he betrayed them all again. Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
This is a very interesting thought. I think it’s natural for people to see the good in others, and Richard definitely utilized that in his dealings with everyone, especially Lady Anne. It reminds me of when Professor Britland talked about how no one in this play is actually redeemable. I think when compared to Richard, any other character in the play looks upstanding, but they really aren’t. Each character had his or her own problems. I think the only reason we feel sympathy for them is because they are being manipulated by someone even worse. Oddly enough, I have no clue what Shakespeare wanted his readers to take out of this play. It seems to be all about deceit and brutality, but plays without central themes aren’t really Bill’s style. That’s the thing about this play that bothered me most.
I found an interesting quote regarding Margaret and the whole theme of free will and punishment from Janis Lull, a noted Shakespeare scholar from the University of Alaska at Fairbanks : “Margaret gives voice to the belief, encouraged by the growing Calvinism of the Elizabethan era, that individual historical events are determined by God, who often punishes evil with (apparent) evil”. I think this helps explain some of the fates of the characters in Richard the Third. The idea of evil being punished by evil could help explain why other characters, although not as bad as Richard, are punished by evil perhaps for not being so good themselves. The idea that their fates are deserved coincides with Richard’s fate, as he dies at the end in a violent way, and rightfully so. In Richard the third, perhaps everyone gets what they deserves, even if it’s at the hands of an evil man like Richard.
f Professor Britland is correct in her analysis that no one in this play is actually redeemable, what does this say about Shakespeare's perception of the English Monarchy? While Richard III is considered a historical play, it was explained to us in both lecture and discussion that the play does not follow historical facts- i.e. Richard III was not really deformed, etc. All of these effects were added to create drama for the play; however, it is hard to separate ones biases from their writings. Given this, is Shakespeare portraying this particular dynasty of the English Monarchy as entirely unredeemable? And if so, may he be commenting on the divine right of the Monarchy-that it is ridiculous to hold these monarchs to such high standards as they are not redeemable people. This sentiment is reiterated in Macbeth.
Post a Comment