Of course, one thing I wonder while reading this play is the audience Shakespeare was writing for. Shakespeare's histories seem to expect the reader to already know a little bit about the story, because some of the play is a little hard to understand without some background. While reading this play, I did come to a point where I felt that I needed to do a little research on the subject matter to really understand the whole situation. After doing said research, Bolingbroke's character did make me feel a little uneasy throughout the play. It turns out that England wasn't a better place once Richard II was gone. Bolingbroke's reign wasn't exactly one of piece and prosperity; in fact, Bolingbroke's time as ruler is better known for being full of rebellions and attempted assassinations than baby kissing political charisma.
Did Shakespeare expect his audience to know that? I obviously couldn't say for sure, but it does seem that way to me. There was always something about Bolingbroke's character that seemed a little hard to relate to, as if Shakespeare didn't expect or want his audience to be fully willing to take his side. Perhaps Shakespeare's audiences were more interested in history than contemporary audiences seem to be; this would certainly explain why he had so many historical plays.
Whatever the case be, I find it hard to pick a side between the two characters as I find them both so hard to trust. Richard never quite made me sympathize with him the way he seemed to be trying to, and Bolingbroke seems to be getting off to a bad start in what will prove to be another bad political reign.
Whatever the case be, I find it hard to pick a side between the two characters as I find them both so hard to trust. Richard never quite made me sympathize with him the way he seemed to be trying to, and Bolingbroke seems to be getting off to a bad start in what will prove to be another bad political reign.
3 comments:
This is a good post because I was wondering the same thing about the audience. I think that the audience at the time had knowledge of Richard and the situation, but as a modern reader, I was totally confused as to who was supposed to be the classic "good guy" and "bad guy" in the play. Thank you for doing follow-up research because I was wondering how the rest of his rule went.
We can assume that Shakespeare believed his audience would know a fair amount of the story. As we said in class, his audience was aware of the problems that followed Richard's demise. And you're right, Jessica, to ask how they would have viewed Richard knowing this history. We'll see this all develop in the next play we read, but I will say that Shakespeare seems to blur the line between "good guy" and "bad guy" in this play, and in the whole tetralogy--at least until we get to Henry V.
Although I think Richard to be a little mad, childish (give him a break, he did become king at age 10, right?) and ridiculous at some points, I think that the task of being king is a taxing position. Look at our presidents, who don't have to witness hand-to-hand combat and constant death of relatives and betrayal, they age rapidly during their presidencies. I think this is also a commentary on the pressures of power and duty. Even men with the best of intentions may fall- as we've seen in Measure for Measure. The best modern day example of this would be Robert Penn Warren's All The King's Men and the story of Huey Long (Willie Stark).
Post a Comment