Shakespeare loves to create and display his idea of the true villain. He creates characters that are, with little exception, completely self-interested. These figures are skeletons, in the sense that they are not well rounded. These characters will step on anyone they need to in order to get what they want. These folks don't even try to justify themselves unless they are accused , and most likely offer no apologizes when finally exposed. These characters call into question almost everything surrounding them, even the divine.
Being crowned under such shaky circumstances, it really doesn't seem like the current king was actually fully expecting himself to become the ruler as quickly as he did. here doesn't seem to be any development in Richard as a person or a ruler. Richard seems to be another victim of his creator's real villain hang-up. Being somewhat pampered and taken care of, as the king, there really has been no need for him to step up and actually act. he knows the lush life now and he wants to hold on to it for as long as he can.
It's a fairly obvious observation to make, but Richard has missed the point. That point being that someone isn't king to "be king." A good ruler needs experience, knowledge, solid judgment skills, and, at the very least, passion. A king should be passionate about the land which he is in charge of. That passion should be what drives him to become a better person, a better ruler. None of these necessary skills exist within Richard. Experience, knowledge, judgment; these things aren't allowed to develop. Something is holding these things far off, a villainous something which the reader can only classify as a lack of concern on the character's part. So no, not much of a chance. He doesn't seem to be running toward any kind of responsibility which would force him to realize where he is and what he should be because of it. The land, the people the crown, all seem like a given for Richard. All there is is the power, something he doesn't work with, but for. Nothing of a king exists in our boy.
Within Richard II there is a strong kind of underlying contrast. Richard (along with many other Shakespeare plays) is heavily motivated by the idea of power. The contrast is lying in the lead man himself. The idea during the time this play takes place is that the king is king. He is the next in line as far as he is concerned, this family being backed by the clouds; the king has the support of the man in the sky. With someone like Richard, there doesn't seem to be anything in him. He's a shell.
Where's god in all of this? The undeniable is sending us, as Richard's people, backwards. The power that is given is being used for only his benefit. Selling land, making use of whatever he needs to get what he wants. No pride for himself, not to mention the land of which he rules over. Could all of those involved and surrounding think for one second that he is there (or god's) man?
1 comment:
I don't see Richard as a villain, but as sympathetic character. King Richard knows he is a bad king and that is why I think he gives his throne to Bolingbrooke. Bolingbrooke doesn't even ask for that, he just asks for what is legally his. From act three and on Richard seems to become depressed and lack the will to live. Richard may be doubting the existance of God, since he failed as a choosen ruler by God.
Post a Comment