Where the Bad Guy's the Star of the Show

Richard III by SparkNotes
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I'm almost through reading Shakespeare's history plays, and my consistent experience has been that they're pretty entertaining, more than I expected. Same with Richard III.

It still presents challenges in a light reading. This isn't study; I'm not taking notes or re-reading parts or drawing diagrams of who's who. (Maybe a little, sometimes.) Mostly, I'm just reading, so some of it gets confusing. Too many damn Edwards over a few generations. Too many people known by their titles when titles are passed to their descendants. I get them mixed up. But it's not crucial to keeping up with the action, and there's pretty good action.

"My kingdom for a horse" is in here. I've been waiting to read that line. And we have the murder of the princes in the tower--that's pretty famous stuff. Still sad all these years later. And old Queen Margaret, throwing out real curses at Richard and everyone still supporting him. That's bound to be awesome to see performed. She was pretty nasty, in a great way.

The ending is most fun, of course. (No spoilers to worry about 400 years after publishing.) The ghosts visiting Richard and then Richmond, cursing the former and blessing the latter, are pretty fun. I would have liked to ask how that was staged, with both tents visible at the same time even though they were in different camps, but it's okay; I figure it out, sorta. Then the fighting stuff is always fun. Though the final battle between them is all stage directions and no dialogue, and it's pretty terse: "Alarum. Enter Richard and Richmond. They fight. Richard is slain." That might look good on stage, but it's subpar reading.

I'd also like to see the bit where Richard woos Anne not long after killing her husband, convincing her to marry him. She curses him and spits at him for pages, then gives in. It's hard to believe, so my hope is that good acting makes it make sense. And convincing the mother of the dead princes--Queen Elizabeth, Edward IV's wife--that he should marry one of her daughters to make right all the wrongs he had done them... Well, that's just nuts. Unless they're all Machiavellian schemers with no human feeling whatsoever. But maybe a good bunch of actors could make it work. I dunno.

Lots to think about. Interesting to read. English history is crazy. Good play, though, so this is recommended to anyone left who hasn't read it or watched it. :)

Just Henry VIII yet to go. It's in the mail, so I've gotta wait.

View all my reviews

Where It's Good but Chewy

King Henry VI, Part 2 by William Shakespeare
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Okay, so, here's the thing--I kinda liked reading this; it was fun in places; some good action... But I couldn't explain it to anyone. I missed so much. A plot summary is just about beyond me.

I often read Shakespeare in the "No Fear" versions, and that usually keeps me in the game when it gets a bit tricky, but couldn't find a copy for this, so instead of reading with help I've been flying solo. Just me and the bard. And tbh, I did NOT do a good job keeping the various factions straight, who was on who's side, and boy I had trouble knowing what was going on as a result. Except for this: plotting plotting lying plotting threatening running plotting.

Lying.

The bits I did understand were thanks to spark notes... :)

The witchcraft scene would have been fun to watch, and the part where Gloucester is murdered was horrible and dramatic and compelling. Come to think of it, the part with pirates was good. Hardcore and cold, but good. You know what, I do remember some of the stuff that happened...

The scenes with the commoners rebelling was entertaining. I was rooting for Cade, and I kinda liked him, but I knew there was no King Cade in English history, so he was gonna stumble eventually. I think it's rude that everybody else speaks in blank verse, presented on the page with lines that look like poetry, but Cade speaks in paragraphs of right-justified prose like a dummy. I know that's a convention, but it seems just a bit classist. (That is meant as ironic understatement, so don't come at me.) However, he *is* allowed to make a good case for their rebellion. I was convinced. Things weren't fair. He was an idiot, probably, but he wasn't wrong about that.

Just look. His ideas for just government seem very sensible:

Jack Cade. ...Your captain is brave, and vows reformation. There shall be in England seven halfpenny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hooped pot shall have ten hoops, and I will make it felony to drink small beer; all the realm shall be in common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to grass: and when I am king, as king I will be,—
All. God save your majesty!
Jack Cade. I thank you, good people: there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers and worship me their lord.

Yeah, it probably wouldn't work. But it sounds awesome.

(His co-conspirator is the one who uttered the famous line, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." It was the law that oppressed the working people, and the lawyers who upheld the law. Cade ran with the idea, though the guy who proposed it had been heckling him throughout his speech.)

York is coming for the king, so they had to bug out, running back to London. I guess we find out who wins in the next play.

Hard to explain why I still liked this, despite my struggles to track some of the characters and their motivations. I did like it, though. I was glad to pick it up each morning to see what was next. But it wasn't a good way to read Shakespeare; as an old English teacher, I really should know better. Imma have to read up on the history before I open up Henry VI part 3 and before I get to Richard III.

Don't be lazy don't be lazy don't be lazy

I'll probably just dive in.

View all my reviews