The Great Shakespearean Challenge Day 158

      138 out of 1194 pages read

     King Richard III picks up where King Henry VI Part Three leaves off. King Edward IV, who ascends the throne at the end of Henry VI, is now older, very ill, and trying to maintain peace between two disputing factions of his court. Little does he know, his brother Richard is plotting to take the throne.

     Richard III was a nice change of pace after three plays of Henry VI. Whereas Henry VI is a weak king, overwhelmed by power, naïve, and easily pushed around, Richard is a man completely possessed by his desire for power. He is willing to do anything to become king including (but not limited to) killing his brother, killing his two young nephews, killing his wife...well, killing just about everyone. A sharp contrast to the pious Henry VI, who tries to defeat his adversaries with words rather than violence.

     And, while being a pushover is not an effective way to rule a kingdom, neither is killing the majority of your family. Richard becomes consumed by his greed for power and his insecurity that everyone is conspiring against him (which, by the end of the play, everyone is pretty much fed up with the guy). For awhile things start looking good for Richard and the reader thinks that maybe he will be able to hold onto the throne, however, his sins quite literally come back to haunt him when, the night before the end battle that will decide if Richard or the Earl of Richmond will become king, Richard is visited by the ghosts of those he killed. The ghosts curse him and, the next morning, King Richard is defeated.
    


This is White Tower, which is where
Edward V and Richard were supposedly
murdered. It is now nicknamed (no doubt
for the benefit of tourists) "Bloody Tower."

     King Richard III was, obviously, an actual English king, but how accurate is this play as a historical record? Was Richard really as evil and greedy as Shakespeare portrays him? The mystery that baffles historians the most is the murder of Edward IV's young sons, Edward V and Richard. According to the play, Richard III ordered Sir James Tyrrel to murder Edward and Richard. Richard III had already started rumors of Edward V's illegitimacy, as well as the illegitimacy of Edward IV, but, if you want to be king, killing the heir to the throne is much more effective than spreading rumors about him. With Edward V and his brother out of the way, Richard III was the next logical heir.

     But was Richard III really that desperate to become king? Desperate enough to kill his two young nephews and numerous other family members? Or was Richard III simply painted a villain by the Earl of Richmond, who would defeat Richard III and ascend the throne as King Henry VII? Richard III certainly was not the only man to have motive to kill the two young princes. Here is an interesting article for anyone wanting more information on the real-life mystery.

      If we're being honest, historians will probably never figure out who actually killed Edward V and Richard. Regardless, Shakespeare's Richard III still represents a powerful example of literature's effect on history. If in fact Richard III was innocent, the play represents how easy it was for the ruling monarch to bend history. After all, Elizabeth I was queen when Shakespeare was writing plays, and, being the granddaughter of Henry VII, she would not have appreciated anyone praising her grandfather's enemy. Thus, it makes sense that Shakespeare portrays Richard III as a nearly compassionless villain, rather than a misunderstood tragic hero (Richard III does kind of start to feel bad after he is cursed by the ghosts of those he killed, but during the end battle, he still fights ruthlessly for his right to be king, thus the recognition of his sins does not seem to be fully realized). Had Shakespeare said good things about Richard III, we would probably study Shakespeare as "that writer guy who made the queen angry and ended up with his head on a pike" and we would be deprived of Hamlet, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Romeo and Juliet, etc., and we would live a very sad, very meaningless existence.

      But I digress.

     Point is, King Richard III gives us an interesting look into the life of 16th and 17th century royalty. Whether Richard III himself was that bloody or not is inconsequential because someone killed those two princes, someone was desperate enough for power to kill two young boys. So perhaps we should look at Richard III the character not as Richard III the actual king, but rather, as an archetype for power-hungry nobles, a symbol for the underlying greed and deceit in every monarch's court. After all, it's not like Richard III was the only guy willing to kill family members for the throne. Stuff like this happened way before his time, and will continue to happen with Henry VII's descendants. Just wait until we get to King Henry VIII.

     Well, after four plays of bloody English history, I will now move onto a bloody Roman tragedy as I dive into Titus Andronicus. Yay! Or as the Romans say--Euge!

The Great Shakespearean Challenge Day 140

 

     103 out of 1194 pages read

     Last week I was privileged enough to go to London, England for a week with my family. Needless to say, it was pretty much one of the best trips ever. And part of what made the trip so amazing was that I got to visit to this place:

 

     If you are unable to identify the above building, then we cannot be friends.

     Just kidding.

 

     Except not really.

 

     For those of you who have just been demoted to acquaintance status, you are looking at a photo of Shakespeare's Globe Theater. No, unfortunately it is not Shakespeare's original Globe Theater, but, the theater is as close and as accurate to the original Globe as any theater ever will be. It's an incredible building.

 

    And as if seeing the theater itself wasn't amazing enough, I was also able to talk my parents into getting the three of us tickets to see A Midsummer Night's Dream.

     We waited until the last minute to get our tickets (my mom was worried about the weather), so we had a limited choice in seats but luckily we were able to get three seats next to each other. It was either that or standing room only, which my old and feeble parents  (just kidding, love you Mom and Dad) refused to do. As it was, they weren't completely sold on the idea on seeing a play at the Globe, so standing for three hours while watching said play was completely out of the question.

    The Globe is an open theater, which is why my mom was so concerned about the rain. However, what we did not know, and what was a pleasant surprise, is that the bench seats (literally, the seats are wooden benches) are, in fact, covered. As for the 700 or so people in the standing area, they are completely exposed to the elements. The stage, of course, is covered by an overhang.

     Even though it was a little chilly on the day we went, everyone is sitting so close together that the seats were actually very cozy. That, and the theater is well-insulated from the wind. Also, as I mentioned before, the seats are literally backless wooden benches. But before entering the theater, there is a little kiosk where pampered ticketholders can rent blankets, seat cushions, and seat backs. My parents and I rented seat cushions (they were one pound a piece) and, needless to say, doing so was a very good investment of three pounds.

     The show started at 2:00 but they started letting people in at 1:30. At about fifteen minutes or so before the show started, a small group of musicians in 16th century garb came onto the stage and played some tunes on Shakespearean-era instruments. Not only was this entertainment for the audience, but it also created a Shakespearean ambience. Aside from the fact that everyone around us was wearing brightly colored rain slickers and most were on their phones, it was easy to believe we were actually in Elizabethan England, waiting to watch A Midsummer Night's Dream, directed by Shakespeare himself.

    The show itself was absolutely fabulous. The actors were incredible and the show was well choreographed. As often is done in productions of A Midsummer Night's Dream, the actors who played Oberon and Titania were the same actors who played Theseus and Hippolyta. This is, of course, done to reinforce the parallels between these two couples as well as to reinforce parallels between the dreamy fairy world and the normal human world.

    Bottom's little troupe of misfit actors tap-danced their way on and off the stage in clog-like shoes, a wonderfully humorous addition that reinforced their silly dialogue. There was an especially funny moment in the second half of the play where Bottom and Peter Quince have a little dance-off (clog-off?). The clogs were especially ingenious because you could always hear Bottom and his friends before they came onto the stage. This was especially clever for the scenes when they went through the crowd in the standing section to get onto the stage.

     Seeing this play was a reminder that plays are, in truth, not meant to be read. They're meant to be seen. To be honest, I never realized just how funny A Midsummer Night's Dream is until I saw that play. I read the play in my sophomore English class. We read the play out loud as a class and watched the movie version of it, but not even the movie conveyed Shakespeare's wit half as well as the play. Obviously, when reading the play, you understand the humor, but you don't fully appreciate it. As for the movie, whoever directed the film didn't fully see the humor either because the actors all read their lines with a seriousness fitting for Romeo and Juliet.

     In short, seeing this play taught me that Shakespeare's plays cannot be fully appreciated unless they're performed in front of a live audience. It's the way the actors interact with the audience and the random things that are going on in the background of the stage that truly bring to life Shakespeare's brilliance.

     The clogs are, of course, a perfect example of the actors interacting with the audience and bringing to life Shakespeare's genius. It was the little things that brought everything together. Like when Demetrius, after Puck doused him in love potion, did a backflip when he saw Helena. Or when Oberon was climbing up the columns and swinging from ropes while the young lovers were arguing and chasing each other through the woods. So many little things that cannot even be explained or appreciated in stage directions made this production hilariously entertaining. Even my parents, who were unsure about seeing the play, were laughing along with me.

     The production was (dare I say it?) perfect. Even with the occasional airplane flying over the theater, the phone that went off, and the sudden downpour of rain three-fourths of the way through the play.

   It was amazing.

    

*Blogger is being a buttface right now (please excuse my language) and is not letting me make my pictures smaller. Sooo I did want to put up more pictures but Blogger isn't really letting me. Hopefully I'll be able to add them up later.

The Great Shakespearean Challenge: Day 41

     58 out of 1194 pages read

     Before I start talking Shakespeare, I would like to thank +Marian Allen for mentioning Diary of a Lit Nerd in her blog! I truly appreciated your kind words, Marian.

     As I mentioned in my previous post, I've been simultaneously reading King Lear and Part Two of King Henry VI. King Lear has proven a much more engaging play than Henry VI, Part Two. Though, I will say, now that I am nearing the end of King Henry VI, the plot has become increasingly more interesting.

     The entrance of the character Jack Cade has livened up the play. Cade is a "labouring man" who is leading a revolt against Henry VI and hopes to take the crown for himself (just about every character in this play wants to take down King Henry). He is portrayed as a fairly terrible person, but his strong personality has brought a degree of excitement to the play.

     So far, my favorite Jack Cade line is "Away with him, away with him! he speaks Latin!"

     Okay, I admit, the line doesn't sound that special, especially out of context. But, for whatever reason, it made me laugh; probably only because when I read it, I imagined a frustrated classmate yelling those words at my Latin teacher.

     And, of course, sitting in my second hour Latin class the next day, that line kept popping in my head. For a fleeting moment, I was tempted to jump from my seat and yell, "Away with him, away with him! he speaks Latin!" but I had a feeling that doing so would be frowned upon, despite the literary origins of the outburst.

     Still, I prefer reading King Lear over King Henry VI. Not only is the story more interesting, but the copy of King Lear that I'm reading for book club is illustrated! How do you illustrate Shakespeare, you ask?

     You don't.

    That's why the illustrations are so entertaining. Take a look:

     Obviously, someone thought it would be clever to try to pictorially represent Shakespeare's metaphors. Take, for instance, the top left image, which is a visual representation of the line "the cart draws the horse."

     Umm...I don't think Shakespeare meant that literally, but okay.

     So, as you can well imagine, it is always a pleasant surprise to turn the page and see an awkward snail, what looks to be a sketch of Oz's City of Emeralds, or a guy barbequing his friend.

     But seriously.

    What King Lear has that Henry VI does not have is Shakespeare's wit. Not to say there is no wit or clever wordplay in Henry VI, because there definitely is, but the wit in King Lear is much more searing. It's clear that Henry VI is one of Shakespeare's earliest plays; the genius is there, he just hasn't embraced it yet. Furthermore, as far as personal preference goes, my favorite literary device (yes, I have a favorite literary device; don't hate) is irony, and King Lear is practically oozing irony.

     I look forward to seeing how both plays conclude. I have plenty of reading to catch up on, so I will live you with this parting image, courtesy of my King Lear book:

 

 

The Great Shakespearean Challenge: Day 17

     30 out of 1194 pages read

     Two days ago, I finished reading King Henry the Sixth Part One, and all in all, I was pleasantly surprised.

     At first it was a tough read, as it was difficult to keep track of the various lords and dukes and their differing storylines. But as I became more familiar with the names and as the storylines began to converge, the play grew more interesting. By the time I got to act III or IV, I was completely sucked in.


     My favorite part of the play is act IV. It is in this act that we see the relationship between Lord Talbot and his son, John.

     Renowned commander of the English army, Lord Talbot is both fearsome and honorable. The French fear him so much that they run at the very sound of his name, but Talbot does not let this go to his head. He knows that without his men backing him up, he is only a "shadow of himself," thus revealing his humility.

     His son, John Talbot, is (if you'll allow me to use this awful cliche) a chip off the old block. In fact, John is so brave, so honorable, so self-sacrificing, that these qualities SPOILER ALERT! lead him to a noble, but premature, death.

     In Act IV, things are looking very bad for the English army. The French have them trapped, and the Duke of Somerset and the Duke of York are too busy arguing to bring Lord Talbot the reinforcements that he so desperately needs. Talbot knows he most likely will not make it out of this battle alive and, when he sees John, he tells his beloved son to flee the battlefield so that John will be able to perpetuate the family name and avenge his father's death. John, however, will have none of this.

     The tenderness between father and son in these scenes is heartbreaking. The situation itself is emotional enough, but Shakespeare's use of rhyme adds an entirely new dimension to the conversation.

Here is one of my favorite parts:

Lord Talbot: Shall all thy mother's hopes lie in one tomb?

John Talbot: Ay, rather than I'll shame my mother's womb.

Lord Talbot: Upon my blessing, I command thee go.

John Talbot: To fight I will, but not to flee the foe.

                                                                 (Act IV, scene v)

     There is just something so tragically poetic about the way John rhymes his own words with his father's. Perhaps it is symbolic of how John strives to be a great man like his father, and how he will follow his father even if it leads to his demise. His words echoes his father, just as his actions echo his father's actions. Both men urge the other to leave the battle, but both refuse to leave, as both would rather die than shame the Talbot name.

     Lord Talbot is easily my favorite character, and I am very sad that SPOILER ALERT! he dies alongside John in battle and therefore will not be making any appearances in parts two or three of King Henry VI. Unless, of course, someone pulls a Hamlet and starts seeing ghosts. But I kind of doubt that.

    Seeing that this post is getting lengthy, I'll end it here with the sincere suggestion that you read this play. I still have much more I want to say about part one of King Henry VI, so be ready for more posts on this particular topic.