Villainy At Its Worst (And Best)
While reading the first act of Richard III, I was strongly reminded of a television show I watched a few years ago in which the main "protagonist" was a mass murderer with a God complex. I spent the entire show waiting for our magnificent bastard of a main character to die. We are only one act into Richard III, and already I am wishing for this main character's bloody demise as well. ...And this is probably what makes this play so absorbing.
Richard of Gloucester is a villain through-and-through, and I'm really looking forward to his downfall. I suppose it's a case of loving to hate someone. I don't think we're meant to sympathize with his plight of being "not shaped for sportive tricks/Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass" (1.1.14-15). Frankly, his physical deformities don't seem to hinder his ability to court women, as proven when he woos Anne—and keep in mind that Richard recently killed Anne's husband, so he must be a real charmer. Richard claims in the beginning of the play that his ugliness makes it impossible for him to be involved in romance, and this is what makes him so miserable, but it seems like a transparent excuse for his inherently malicious and jealous nature.
It's also easy to hate Richard after all of his plotting. He manipulates and has a hand in the deaths of both of his brothers, puts Elizabeth in a bad position, and even courts Anne just for the pleasure of knowing she would readily succumb to the charms of her husband's killer. Richard manipulates everyone around him: He makes Anne believe that she is to blame for her husband's death, because Richard was just so taken with her that he had to kill him. He makes sure his brother Edward begins to distrust their other brother, Clarence, and has Clarence thrown in the Tower. He even manipulates Clarence so well that, even when the murderers reveal that Richard is the one who sent them, he tells the murderers, "It cannot be, for he bewept my fortune,/And hugged me in his arms, and swore with sobs/That he would labour my delivery" (1.4.232-34).
To be able to manipulate and deceive everyone around him so completely, and to ensure the deaths and downfalls of so many, Richard can't feel any sympathy for his victims. He doesn't seem to have much of a conscience. As such, I don't feel particularly bad about hating Richard and looking forward to the unraveling of his plans. He's a villain—and unlike most villains, where you can follow some reasoning and possibly find some sympathetic points, I feel nothing but disdain for him and hope he gets everything Margaret said he will.
6 comments:
While I have to agree with you that Richard has to be one of, if not the most, evil villans that Shakespeare has ever written, I am not quite sure if I agree with the fact that we are meant to not sympathize with him. Granted, the man is deformed and I do understand your point that his deformity didn't seem to hinder him from courting Lady Anne, but does that mean that she was wooed by his looks or his intellect? Richard, like Iago uses his language very carefully and I feel that it was his language/smarts that thrusted him into the world of courting women. Back to my original thought; maybe Richard is meant to be sympathized with. He is deformed so he is given the short end of the gene pool on that instance as well as he is the youngest of his brothers and destined to barely gain and money or title from the family of York winning the war of the Rose. I'm not saying it excuses his evil but these few points are soemthing to keep in mind while reading the rest of this play.
I agree that it would be really hard to find a shred of sympathy or pity for Richard. He is undoubtedly one of the evilest villains Shakespeare put on the stage, but I still can't be sure if he is the worst. I think Iago takes the cake when it comes to that, but I've yet to know of what tricks Richard has yet to turn in the upcoming acts.
While reading your post, I was trying to figure out what television show about a mass murderer you were talking about. Is it Dexter? If so, I think that the audience is actually supposed to feel sympathy for Dexter's character (after all, the whole schtick of the show is the "lovable serial killer who only murders bad people"). However, I do agree with you about how manipulative and devious Richard is; it makes the readers not only want to read more to find out what happens, but anticipate his downfall as well.
While I agree with your summarizing of Richard being a complete villain I can also imagine why Shakespeare would create a character like this, someone doesn't even need to finish act I to see that Richard is evil. However I can't help but look for Shakespeare's meaning behind creating such an evil character. I feel as if Shakespeare's characters aren't meant to be taken at face value, but evaluated for a deeper meaning that consists of common human characteristics such as jealousy, love, hate, passion, etc. He takes a perfectly normal human reaction and turns it into an impulsive act (as seen in Othello) and I see Richard as his version of someone who is insecure about themselves (deformities) so they hurt other people to make themselves feel more in control and confident, or to make others miserable with them. I feel as if Richard is that person, the one who is so unhappy with himself he needs to make others unhappy. The only place Richard feels a sense of self worth is on the battlefield so he creates his own battlefield in life so he can gain a sense of control- living in a world of discontent is his content.
I definitely agree with your feelings about Richard. However, I can't say that I don't have any sympathy for him. I feel for him, because he is one of those people that can't help themselves and takes in the glory of hurting others. On the other hand, he is extremely easy to hate. He is quite the villain. It's hard for me to understand his viewpoints as far as his deformities, as mentioned, because he is able to woo Anne. I feel that he uses his looks as an excuse to do what he does so that his conscience doesn't get the best of him. What kind of villain would he be if he had a conscience?! I can't wait for his downfall either!
One of the most interesting features about this play is Shakespeare's use of a villain as his protagonist. Imagine the "Tragedy of Iago," or "The Tragical History of Claudius, Hamlet's Step-Dad"! But it points the interesting problems raised in this post and comments. How are we supposed to relate to this central character? Can we have a heroic villain? Shakespeare has an answer to this, maybe, but we'll have to see if it satisfies us!
Post a Comment