Learning from the form of our recent tragedies completed in class, I can assume that the turns being thrown by Richard III in Act I are very unlikely to right themselves.
After Richard III double crosses his younger brother, Clarence, by telling rumors to lock him in the tower, I couldn't help but recall Iago when Richard III confides in Clarence, "We say the King is wise and virtuous, and his noble Queen well struck in years, fair and not jealous. We say that Shore's wife hath...a bonny eye, a passing pleasing tongue." (1.1, 90-95) What struck a likeness to Iago for me was the way Richard III was maintaining Clarence's confidence in him while suggesting to Clarence that it may have been King Edward, his wife, or perhaps Lady Shore that is responsible for his imprisonment. Richard III is as two-faced and slippery as Iago, projecting the same type of cringe-worthy artifice that runs through many Shakespearean tragedies.
In comparing Richard III to other antagonists, I must draw attention to the obscurity that surrounds the motives of Shakespeare's villains and what causes them to do as they do. Don John, of 'Much Ado About Nothing', for example, went to great lengths to muddle up the established relationship between Claudio and Hero, chalking up his incorrigible behavior to his insignificance and jealousy of being the bastard brother to Don Pedro. Don John's reasoning of familial resentment hardly seemed consistent with the damage it wrought over Hero's sense of self-worth and reputation and 'Twelfth Night's' Iago takes a vow of silence before relieving the audience with the explanation they yearned for.
These villains, among others, were brought to my mind during Richard III's opening speech which already details why he is so rotten, "I that am rudely stamped and want love's majesty...cheated of feature by dissembling nature, deformed, unfinished, sent before my time...And therefore since I cannot prove a lover...I am determined to prove a villain and hate the idle pleasures of these days." (1.1, 16-31) Richard III chiefly cites his physical deformity and inability to woo as the source of his bitterness and evil ways, yet he also notes a different frustration having to do with Edward, "Instead of mounting barbed steeds...he capers nimbly in a lady's chamber." (1.1, 10-12) Richard III resents his brother, King Edward, for his prowess with women and at the same time is frustrated with his ineffectiveness as a ruler. I both intrigued and filled with dread of reading further in this play and discovering what other awful instances Richard III is going to manifest these inhibitions.
4 comments:
I enjoyed reading your blog post, particularly the point you made about the obscurity surrounding the motives of Shakespeare's villains. It's something that I've been thinking about a lot, particularly after completing Othello. It's part of human nature, I think, to want to find a rational, tangible explanation for aspects of humanity that are confusing or difficult to comprehend. I think we can stretch this obscure motivation theory back to Puck from A Midsummer Night's Dream. He didn't have a reason for turning Bottom's head into a donkey's head, but he did. I suppose Shakespeare's purpose was to get us talking about what motivates the good and bad aspects of human nature in the first place. He wants us to debate, discuss, and argue over what causes people to react to certain situations differently, and what causes them to behave the way they do. And he seemingly creates these different scenarios as a way by which we can discover, and attempt to understand varying facets of human nature. Granted my conclusions may be completely untrue, but if they are true - then I believe he has succeeded.
I agree with Martha, this was a great post. I loved how you looked at all of the villains across the board. Each of them it seems except for Iago has motivation. I've been finding the motivation for Richard III's evil particularly interesting. Cool post!
I also agree with the comments above me! It was interesting to read your post and really get into the minds, motives, and similarities between all the villians that we had come in contact with in this class. I had previously compared him with Iago myself, but I would have never thought before about the similarities between him and Don John! And there certainly are similarities with the family ties being motivations. It's amazing to see the similarities that would have been otherwise overlooked.
This post adds a nice dimension to the popular topic this week of Richard's villainy. I think it is really helpful to look in the broader canon for other, less obvious analogues to Richard, including Puck, as Martha nicely points out. The mischief maker, the character who stirs up trouble, can be oriented toward comedy (as Puck is, or even Don John), but also toward tragedy. Yet another way of thinking about this generic divide to which we turn so frequently in our class!
Post a Comment