So far I’ve enjoyed the first three acts of Richard II, and feel that they are a nice change of pace from the comedies we’ve read up until this point. At this point, however, I’ve still not been able to choose a side to root for, and the various family connections of people on both sides don’t make anything easier. I seem to be more inclined to be on Richard’s side, although it’s very possible that this is only because the play is named after him and he is the main character of the play. His character, however, does not seem to be the greatest person, as he openly admits that, should he need to, he has no problem filling out blank bank charters with a rich person’s name and collecting the money from them. He also takes inheritance that is not rightfully his from Bolingbroke after John of Gaunt dies.
One thing that surprised me a little in Act 3.2 was how nonchalantly women were put down. I always seem to forget how poorly women were treated throughout history and often get surprised when reading things such as this. Scrope even goes so far as to use the word “female” in place of “weak.” He also insults the men who would fight against the king by insinuating that they are young and girly by saying; “Boys with women’s voices/ strive to speak big” (3.2.109-110).
Something I’m becoming concerned with so far, though, is the amount of characters who keep coming about and their various titles. It seems like every time I get used to the character names, they either change or another character is thrown into the mix. I find it especially frustrating when there are characters such as “First Lady” and “Second Lady” or “Gardiner” (3.4) because we never get their names and they only have brief appearances in the play, at least so far. I find myself wondering whether or not characters such as these, and even some of the more prominent characters, are needed. Couldn’t Shakespeare have found some way around using so many characters? Especially characters that serve little to no purpose? We are told at the beginning of the Norton (the family tree) that Shakespeare combines certain characters, etc. so I would think that he put a fair amount of thought into which characters should be in the play, and which should be left out, so I guess it’s safe to assume that any characters in the play are there because Shakespeare wanted them to be. Sometimes it just seems slightly overwhelming.
New Paltz Students Blogging about Shakespeare
3 comments:
I agree that the characters in this (and the other history plays) are really confusing and hard to follow the who’s who. It can get frustrating when many of them also have the same name. Also some aren’t listed in the Norton family tree by the names they have throughout the play, such as Bolingbroke, who is listed in the tree as Henry IV.
I agree with many things you said here especially the confusing name part! I like the change of pace from comedy to this blend of history/tragedy. I also agree that I have no idea whos side to be on. Richard seems like a sneaky and horrible king while Bolingbroke seems friendly yet cunning. I did also notice that women were not really used as powerful figures in this play. In most of Shakespeare's plays women are treated badly but are of much importance to the play. For some reason I felt like women didn't even have to be present in this play and it could still have functioned just fine.
~Julie
I really like Mark's point about women in this play, something that also came up in class, and it certainly applies to the history genre more broadly. Shakespeare was up against a tough obstacle, though, since English historians tended to marginalize women. Richard III is one play in which we get strong female voices (I'm thinking mainly of Margaret), but even there they are ultimately silenced.
Post a Comment