On Shakespeare

As much as I've admired Shakespeare over the years: the marvelous ideas, the great metaphors, similes, personifications he produced that exist in his enduring works, he didn't half screw things up over that one play, that play about Rich. It hasn't half done some damage, and I mean damage!! There must have been a heavily strict decree going about in Elizabethan England that would have said something like: 'If you dare write or produce anything other than the official version, you'll be clapped in the Tower so fast you're head will be off before it reaches the block.' Nothing, or at the very least very little, would have escaped censorship.
While I delved into my mother's plethora for history and her history books, I never had an inkling for the official version about Rich, either because of the old English style, or simply because it wasn't and isn't true.

I've always wondered if he didn't deliberately write it as farce. Granted, it was done early in his career, but still -- he knew how to write believeable characters well before he wrote this turkey.

Compare it to his other history plays, all of which have realistically-drawn people doing generally believeable things as their leads. Compare Shakespeare's R3 to his other villains and/or misled good guys: say, Othello, or Iago, or Shylock, or Angelo in Measure for Measure. When stood next to those blokes, his Richard comes off rather like the "villain" in an Ealing Studios farce from the 1960s. Willie the Shake's Richard is always telling people how eeeeevil he is, as if he's afraid people in the audience might otherwise like him; the other fellows might on occasion say something to the effect of "yep, I'm evil", but seldom with such blatancy and frequency.

Furthermore, look at how others in the play react to him - they're if anything even more ridiculous. Wet-rag Annie starts out wanting to hate the ugly hunchback who murdered her husband, then winds up being hypnotized by him in the space of a couple dozen lines? Seriously?

This play is what, in fact, made me a Ricardian. Its depiction of Richard is so over-the-top that it made me curious about the real Richard was like -- and the next thing I know, I'm finding a copy of *The Daughter of Time* in a second-hand book shop.

Tamara

You also have to look at the hatchet job he did on Macbeth, who was a really good man and highly admired king, ruling Scotland for 20 years, able to go on pilgrimage to Rome for two years and come back to a happy and peaceful realm!
He also painted Henry V as hero when he was a nasty little Sh*t!
The Bard knew little history and cared less if it got in the way of good drama.
Paul


On 30/03/2015 14:54, davetheslave44@... [] wrote:
As much as I've admired Shakespeare over the years: the marvelous ideas, the great metaphors, similes, personifications he produced that exist in his enduring works, he didn't half screw things up over that one play, that play about Rich. It hasn't half done some damage, and I mean damage!! There must have been a heavily strict decree going about in Elizabethan England that would have said something like: 'If you dare write or produce anything other than the official version, you'll be clapped in the Tower so fast you're head will be off before it reaches the block.' Nothing, or at the very least very little, would have escaped censorship.
While I delved into my mother's plethora for history and her history books, I never had an inkling for the official version about Rich, either because of the old English style, or simply because it wasn't and isn't true.

Paul all I can say is the many who think that Shakespeare was spot on don't understand the meaning of the word evidence.
Mary

Even though it's not the worth toilet paper it's written on, I will refer to the article: "ugh, hmm," Michael Thornton wrote for the Daily Mail last week. Mind you, it's so full of holes, I hardly even need to look at it to tear it apart. I am teaching a journalist reading class at the moment, so I'll be using it in class as a classic example of biased journalism. I'll just mention a couple of points, however.
First off, if the 'rest' of Shakespeare's physical portrayal of Richard III (withered arm, etc) rings true, how could he possibly hold up heavy weaponry like axes and swords, unless his historical reputation as a warrior is inaccurate? If Thornton reads his history accurately, he would know that Clarence was executed for his double-dealing and side-taking, not treacherously murdered by Richard in Shakespeare's play. Thornton neglects to include Clarence among Richard's other alleged victims in the play, and his alleged murder of Henry VI in Henry VI Prt 3
Secondly, Thornton asserts that Henry Tudor 'provoked a popular uprising' against Richard because of his alleged usurpation of the throne and murder of Edward V. HT gathered his forces from Brittany. So, popular with whom? Disaffected Frenchman who had a grievance against England going back to the Hundred Year's War, and nobles or prelates who stood to gain if Richard was out of the way. Given what is known about HT and his appalling reign as Henry VII, he wouldn't have cared a rats arse if Richard had usurped the throne and murdered the uncrowned boy king.
Thornton accuses Richard III of being some kind of 'heroic murderer' who didn't turn coat and run from Bosworth. That sounds rather muddled and reeks of prejudicial thinking.

Thornton you can't have it both ways. Either Rich was a hero or a cowardly murderer. History tells us he died valiantly trying to defend his cause and that of the Plantagenet line. What is it to be?

Was Shakespeare TTHHAATT hazed!!?

The odd (well...it mightn't be, given how mud sticks) thing is, the swathe of lies, deceit, cover-ups, etc, etc, etc, about RIII that went on in Tudor England was only meant for that dynasty and that dynasty alone.

It's laughable that that 'official' version is still being believed and written about today.

Tamara wrote :

"This play is what, in fact, made me a Ricardian. Its depiction of Richard is so over-the-top that it made me curious about the real Richard was like -- and the next thing I know, I'm finding a copy of *The Daughter of Time* in a second-hand book shop."

Carol responds:

Something very similar happened to me. I knew that Shakespeare had exaggerated to the point of making Richard a cartoon villain, that he had changed Edmund's age in one of the Henry VI to make him a child instead of a seventeen-year-old, and that he brought in Margaret of Anjou as a kind of chorus though, historically, she was dead at that point, so I did a research paper (I was taking a graduate course in Shakespeare at the time) to discover the real Richard. Imagine my surprise in discovering that even the anti-Richards (Alison Hanham is the one I remember most clearly) discredited part of the story as Tudor propaganda. I didn't know what to make of her theory that More's "history" was a kind of parody. (That idea has grown on me over the years.) Anyway, I, too, have Shakespeare to thank for becoming a Ricardian. My professor informed me that there was a Richard III Society, which I never would have known if not for old Will. I do love most of his other plays, but I wish he hadn't written this one.

Carol