One passage from Shakespeare's Richard III that I found particularly interesting was the following:
GLOUCESTER
Welcome, dear cousin, my thoughts' sovereign
The weary way hath made you melancholy.
PRINCE EDWARD
No, uncle; but our crosses on the way
Have made it tedious, wearisome, and heavy
I want more uncles here to welcome me.
GLOUCESTER
Sweet prince, the untainted virtue of your years
Hath not yet dived into the world's deceit
Nor more can you distinguish of a man
Than of his outward show; which, God he knows,
Seldom or never jumpeth with the heart.
Those uncles which you want were dangerous;
Your grace attended to their sugar'd words,
But look'd not on the poison of their hearts :
God keep you from them, and from such false friends!
PRINCE EDWARD
God keep me from false friends! but they were none.
This passage, although seemingly harmless and normal from the Prince's point of view, is an ironic and hateful conversation in the reader's perspective. When Richard speaks of deceit and attempts to decipher who a man is on the inside, he is, in reality, speaking of himself, and his ulterior motives. It is horrifying as the reader sits and pictures the scene, as Richard takes on the persona of a harmless, deformed uncle, when we know what really is on the inside of the man. When he speaks of outward appearances being deceiving, he is speaking directly about himself, and yet turning his nephew away from thinking him to be a threat. The irony of this passage, as well as the play on words that Richard utilizes to convince Edward that he is the safe uncle, create the type of scene that, even just being read, makes the reader stir with a sense of foreboding, yelling at their book as they realize what is going to happen. I think it is the manipulation and cruelty that Richard demonstrates throughout the play that makes this passage more effective, because the audience can only sit in anticipation, predicting the main character's next move.
This play, aside from its dialogue, also had some historical value. Shakespeare, in a combination of tyranny and history, took the story of Richard III and made it into a little chunk of English history. I think that, although history can be boring at times, Shakespeare found a way in which it could appeal to his audiences. The intertwining of tragedy and history, was, in my opinion, an archetype of typical royal happenings. The fight for power, the desire for status, the ruthlessness to reach those goals, it all works not only in the play, but in reality. Even today, there are still constant power struggles not only amongst governmental figures, but also average people. Although history was a large part of the play, Shakespeare was able to create an interesting plot that was related to everyday life.
Richard III, in my opinion, had its greatest strength in its language. Shakespeare knew what to write in order to make the work more impacting, show Richard as the dishonest, manipulative man that he was underneath his physical guise of weakness. I loved how Shakespeare took Richard's character, and rather than keeping him in the seemingly weak state that he was physically, made Richard's character into one of extreme power. The extremes of this play were shocking, and the pure cruelty of the situations was frightening. To take a deformed man, and transform him into a deceptive, power-hungry man requires great skill, and this play showed Shakespeare's mastery of the English language just as every other one of his plays has. The play appeals to audiences, has the death, and drama, and the emotional pull that a play requires in order to be a success. The sheer number of deaths in this play is frightening, but even more frightful is how Richard succeeds with his scheming, and does become King, even if for a short while.
2 comments:
Hi! I definitely agree that the idea that Richard was a deformed man, and yet surpassed that deformity on a mission for power, was a great aspect to this play. Richard's deformity adds an element of studying human nature to this novel. Just as the "Napolean complex" is used to describe someone who is short and feels the need to compensate for their lack of height by being loud, or rude, the "Richard complex" can be used to describe someone unhappy with their physical appearance who needs power over others to compensate for lack of self-esteem. The story would be so different had Richard been described as a handsome man. I think he could have attained power much eaiser and he could have relied on his looks more than his speech, would have taken away from the enjoyment most people get from reading Richards sly, clever dialogue.
But elle, you must also consider the historical accuracy of your assertions.In actuality, Richard was not deformed. Historically, Richard III had no physical deformity. He yet ascended to the throne after the highly controversial deaths of Edward V and his brother (historians contest that Richard killed them). It IS documented that he took both Edward V and his brother up to the Tower of London, too. Shakespeare took HUGE literary license in portraying Richard with a deformity, for that is not factually correct. As for your assertion that the story would have been much diffferent if he was not deformed, well, look to history. The story was NOT all that different--Richard killed to take the throne. After doing so, he was killed in battle. It parallels the Shakespearean work. Of course, the "Napolean Complex" is existant in real life, that is indisputable. But it did not play a factor in either Richard III the play, nor in his life.
Post a Comment