Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Bill Kerwin's Reviews > Richard III

Richard III by William Shakespeare
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
83582
's review

really liked it


I remembered this play as being nothing more than a superb melodrama organized around a charismatic, one-dimensional villain, but I now realize it is more complex than that.

Richard's deformity is not merely a physical sign of spiritual evil, but also a metaphor for the twisted era of internecine and intra-generational violence of which he himself is the inevitable conclusion. Richard claims that his disability disqualifies him for a peaceful age's love-making, but his effective wooing of Lady Anne--literally over her husband's dead body--belies this claim. No, Richard, who from infancy has known nothing but civil war and betrayal, can only be effective when he is either murdering his Plantagenet relatives or plotting to do so. (Thus, when he finally becomes king, he can neither enjoy the honor nor rise to the challenge, and therefore is soon plagued with nightmares and consigned to destruction.)

Richard fancies himself as the medieval Vice, commenting sardonically to the audience on the action he has devised, heedless of the fact that he is also part of a universal moral design. Richard, who embodies in concentrated form the worst deeds of his time, must be purged so that a new age can be established.

It is here that the women of the play become important, transforming it into Senecan if not Sophoclean tragedy. In periodic choruses, the queens Margaret, Elizabeth and Anne (plus the Duchess of York) mourn their children and others who have been snatched from them by civil war, and call down vengeance on Richard and other murderers. The interesting thing about this chorus, however, is that it is not composed of unified expressions of grief and vengeance, for the woman continually curse and blame each other, each proclaiming her own sorrow as somehow superior to that of the others. Ironically, the age's long history of crimes against mothers deprives even maternal grief of its unity.

I believe this is Shakespeare's first self-conscious attempt to create tragedy--in the classical sense--out of popular drama. The conception of the women's chorus--both a traditional tragic chorus and at the same time something more personal, more ironic--is particularly impressive in this regard. Unfortunately, however, Shakespeare overreached himself. In execution, the chorus of queens is often whiny and wearying, and slows down the action without illuminating it. Nevertheless, it is a great step toward the tragic resonances of the major plays.
193 likes ·  âˆ� flag

Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read Richard III.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

May 12, 2007 – Shelved
Started Reading
August 1, 2009 – Finished Reading

Comments Showing 1-18 of 18 (18 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

Henry Avila Great review as always. Well Bill, you have another Shakespeare play to read, Double Falsehood or Distrest Lovers. Cardenio, from Don Quixote, the original name, he wrote with his friend Fletcher. Looking forward to reading that review !


Bill Kerwin I'll read it . . . If somebody locates a copy. As far as I know, it is a lost play.


message 3: by Christine (new)

Christine I think Henry is referring to this story:




But the last time a computer program said something was Shakespeare, it turned out it be wrong.


Henry Avila You can get it new on amazon for less than four dollars, plus shipping, that will double that price.


message 5: by Bill (last edited Apr 11, 2015 07:05PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bill Kerwin Thanks for relaying the news, Henry and Chris! I'll make sure to read it sometime. I hope it's better than Edward III.


Henry Avila Too bad Shakespeare never wrote Richard the First, Bill,that, would have been fascinating...


message 7: by Bill (last edited Apr 12, 2015 03:44AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bill Kerwin Henry wrote: "Too bad Shakespeare never wrote Richard the First, Bill,that, would have been fascinating..."

Maybe . . . then again, Richard I as an historical figure is a lot like Edward III.

But that reminds me of a good Richard story I came across in Hume's history of England:

While on her way to the Holy Land, Berengaria, Richard's queen, was shipwrecked near Cyprus, where the prince--and self-styled "emperor"--held her for ransom. Richard then conquered the island and clapped the "emperor" in irons. When this noble prisoner expressed outrage at being treated like a common criminal, Richard responded by removing his iron restraints and substituting for them a specially ordered, custom-made set of silver fetters.


Henry Avila Richard only spent 6 months in England when he was king. He said the reason why , was that it was always cold and rainy there...


Bill Kerwin Henry wrote: "Richard only spent 6 months in England when he was king. He said the reason why , was that it was always cold and rainy there..."

Not surprising for a boy who grew up in southern France. Besides, when he traveled, he got to fight and kill a lot more people . . .


message 10: by Henry (last edited Apr 12, 2015 05:10AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Henry Avila He was killed by friendly fire, a guard amusing himself by shooting arrows at passersby... Trying to see how close he could get!


message 11: by Wastrel (new)

Wastrel The big difference between Richard I and Edward III was that the latter was succesful at it, whereas the first was something of a failure, frankly.


The thing I think people overlook about Richard III (the play) is how funny it is (or can be, at least).


message 12: by Bill (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bill Kerwin Wastrel wrote: "The thing I think people overlook about Richard is how funny it is..."

Yes! His asides are darkly amusing ("My dagger, little cousin? With all my heart!)' and some of the situations too. I particularly like the one where the reluctant Gloster appears on a balcony flanked by monks and reading a prayer book, and has to be persuaded to assume the crown. (I think about this scene every time there's an American presidential election)


message 13: by Glen (new)

Glen I actually got a greater appreciation for the play after reading the notes on playing Richard III that Stacey Keach included in his autobiography.


message 14: by William (new)

William I loved this version set in 1930s Britain with brownshirts and Ian McKellan, and a huge wonderful cast.


message 15: by Bill (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bill Kerwin William wrote: "I loved this version set in 1930s Britain with brownshirts and Ian McKellan, and a huge wonderful cast. "

I love this movie, and I'm usually one of those conservative types who frowns on Shakespeare in anything approaching modern dress. But the Fascist British atmosphere is so believable, the parallels so resonant, and McKellan's performance so delightfully over the top that the movie completely won me over.


message 16: by William (new)

William I have been watching the new BBC series SS-GB (Len Deighton 1978 book). The atmosphere is very claustrophobic, frightening and surreal. We came so close to this. "The Few" who repeatedly frustrated the Germans in the Battle of Britain were surely and forever recognized by Churchill's "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few". If any young people doubt this, SS-GB will be a terrifying wakeup call.


Emilie I love this play and agree with your analysis of Shakespeare's Richard as the inevitable conclusion of a nasty period of history. It lacks the sophistication of the later plays, but man, it is just so entertaining.


Anand I’ll read this soon, when I finished 3 Henry VI.

But I notice even many of the best critics aren’t always easy about Richard III - whether Samuel Johnson, Harold Goddard, or Harold Bloom, who seem to see the play as flawed in some way.

What do you think?


back to top