Richard II

 So, I know I said that first stop in the histories would be King John, but then I found about The Hollow Crown and got it at the library. Because of that, I'll be writing up Richard II and the Henrys IV and V. Admittedly, I checked it out partly because Tom Hiddleston plays Prince Hal/Henry V, but I started with the first one in the batch, Richard II, and it blew me away. Incredible play, incredible production. As plays are always easier to watch than read, it helped to watch the film, then read the play, as I could then hold the structure in my mind better. The Hollow Crown's production cuts a minor scene in the first act, and switches the character who assassinates Richard (which has great dramatic affect, admittedly--I can understand why they made that particular choice). There are a few added scenes with no lines to fill in the gaps between scenes, sketching out the action that's only told of.

Richard II is Shakespeare's account of the end of Richard II's reign, when he was deposed by the man who became King Henry IV. Richard's story is that of a king who devoutly believes in the doctrine of rule by divine right. Unfortunately for Richard, he listens to flatterers who are not as wise as his older advisors, raises taxes too high, and heads off to fight in a war in Ireland, leaving his country under the protection of his uncle, who remains rather unfortunately neutral when Richard's banished cousin Henry Bolingbroke turns up to reclaim his dukedom (but really, to seize the throne). When he returns from Ireland to find that most of his people are vocally (and militarily) supportive of Henry, he reluctantly relinquishes his crown. For his pains, he is thrown in prison and later assassinated.

Of course, the true situation was a little more complex and took a bit longer than than Shakespeare's two-three hour depiction. Apparently the ruinous tax situation was longer-lived than the few months or so in the play--Richard had not been very popular for a while. It's a lesson in caution to those monarchs who ruled by divine will--they also ruled at the will of the people, and the people should have been considered more than they were.

This is my first real foray into Shakespeare's histories. I've read Macbeth (excellent play), but other than watching bits of Henry V, I hadn't really considered the histories. And they are well worth consideration. The language is incredible. I almost feel like saying, "Screw the comedies, the histories are much better!" (True, I haven't read all of them yet, so we shall see. If this is a fair sample, then yes, the histories are much better written). There are lines in Richard II which I recognize but had never known came from this play. There is an ode to England so beautiful that it nearly makes one weep; the scene when Richard abdicates is wrenching; the moment when he realizes he will lose his crown is exquisitely painful.

Our next stop in the histories will be Henry IV, Part I, followed by Part II. Henry IV is also a great play and I look forward to discussing it.

Quote (I liked a lot in this play, so we'll just do one quote this time, to save space)

This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,

This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,

This other Eden – demi-paradise –

This fortress built by nature for herself

Against infection and the hand of war,

This happy breed of men, this little world,

This precious stone set in the silver sea,

Which serves it in the office of a wall,

Or as a moat defensive to a house

Against the envy of less happier lands;

This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.
                       John of Gaunt, Richard II Act II, Scene 1,40-50

Romeo and Juliet

 
I keep intending to finish off the comedies and then move into the histories properly, but for some reason, I'm stuck in the first act of Winter's Tale and can't get past it yet. So here's my thoughts on a play I've read before, for at least two different English courses. We're skipping ahead briefly to the tragedies. 

Romeo and Juliet is not the easiest play for me to write about. Like many kids, I had to read it in grade nine, and I hated it. Two idiots falling in love, making a series of stupid mistakes, and then killing themselves, is not my idea of a good story. "They're morons," I thought. "Why on earth do people idolize this story?"

Then I watched Season 2 of Slings and Arrows. Romeo and Juliet is the secondary plot in that season, and the treatment of the play there transformed how I responded to the play. The language is beautiful and draws me in, and I have been able to accept the story more. The characters are not wise, and in that sense, they represent most teenagers. I too, fell in love all of a sudden with someone I barely knew when I was only fourteen. I made an idiot of myself, and the only reason I didn't make any really colossal mistakes was that he wasn't interested (and years later it occurred to me that he could have done a lot of damage had he been a certain sort of guy, and I breathed a sigh of relief that I'd escaped that. Embarrassment was far preferable). After acknowledging that, it's easier for me to put myself into the main characters' minds. I would never have gone so far as suicide, but their passion is more understandable when I remember how I was in my early teens. I can empathize.

Despite my new-found empathy for the story, I still don't love this play. Romeo starts it off in love with another girl, Rosaline, and crashes a party hosted by his family's enemies, the Capulets, in order to see her. Then he spots Juliet Capulet, and the young Montague instantly forgets what's-her-name, and makes it his mission to conquer a different girl's heart. I almost wrote, "to nail Juliet" instead, but though I'd guess his interest in her is primarily sexual, he does appear to be emotionally involved as well. The two of them talk in the famous balcony scene, make plans to run away and marry, do so, and then before Romeo kills Juliet's cousin for murdering his best friend, and is banished from the city. Juliet is heart-broken, especially when her parents suddenly decide to marry her off to another man. As she can hardly tell them she's secretly married her cousin's killer, she fakes her death with the help of the friar who had conducted their marriage. He sends word to Romeo to come fetch Juliet. Unfortunately, Romeo receives the news of Juliet's death first. He arrives in Verona to find Juliet's intended lurking around her tomb, kills him, then kisses his beloved goodbye and downs a vial of poison. Then, of course, Juliet wakes up. As Romeo has been so inconsiderate as to consume all the poison, Juliet makes use of her husband's dagger to kill herself. In the aftermath of their children's suicides, the Capulets and Montagues reconcile.

See? Disappointing. I'm not inclined to think of suicide as romantic, so it just seems like a tragedy of morons and miscommunication. But it is a tragedy of morons with pretty language, so it does have some redeeming qualities. Just a couple of quotes this time, though.

Quotes

"Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean." Romeo and Juliet, I.1.4 This one somehow resonates with me--a poetic comment on the darkness overlaying these so-called 'civil' people, these nobles who can't stop killing each other.

"Look, love, what envious streaks
Do lace the severing clouds in yonder east:
Night's candles are burnt out, and jocund day
Stands tiptoe on the misty mountain tops." Romeo, Romeo and Juliet, III.5.7-10 The third line here is most often quoted, but a little context shows that the speech is even more lovely.

Book Musings: The Casual Vacancy

Since we are poor and I can't justify spending $35 on a book that I'm not sure if I'll like at the moment, I was in the library queue for J. K. Rowling's new book, The Casual Vacancy. I finally got it about a week and a half ago.

I read it over two days (this is normal to slow reading speed for me--yes, I know I'm annoying), and when I finished it the second evening, sitting in bed while J. was snoring beside me, I wasn't sure how to react.

It's a good book. The quality of writing is far higher than the last couple Harry Potter books (the best of the bunch in my opinion), and Rowling does not sacrifice story for sentiment. This is always a difficult thing for a writer, I think. I'm crap at writing tragedy, and when I realize that something really bad has to happen to a character, it's almost a mourning process. My almost-ready-to-go novel has one character who, in the very first incarnation of the book, was going to die. I kept her alive, partly because I was too chicken to kill her, and partly because it worked better for the plot just to have lots of horrific things happen to her. But it still hurts to have ripped her apart like that, even for the sake of the story.

However, unlike me, Rowling fearlessly allows bad things to happen and it makes the story better as a result. I hadn't read about the story, and I had no idea what was going to happen, so by the time I reached the end, I was almost traumatized. This, I think, is what a good tragedy should do. As Kafka said, "A book should serve as the axe for the frozen sea within us." I felt cracked open after reading this book.

When the book began, I thought it would be a dark comedy. Indeed, the exposition is very much darkly humourous. I couldn't stop laughing, but it was the kind of laughter that is followed by knife-twisting reality. None of the characters in the book are truly good--they are all dangerously flawed, and so few of them are self-aware that they don't even realize how flawed they are. As a result, the damage they cause to those around them is excruciating.

The truly frightening thing is that the characters' petty squabbles, which cause so much pain, are real. It is easy to look at the story and see it playing out in reality somewhere. There are people like that. There are many people like that. And I shudder to think which character I might resemble most. I don't want to be any of them, but it scares me to think that my tendency towards being judgemental, which I try to tightly rein in, might break loose and become that destructive.

The book really is a tragedy: it begins with a death and ends with a funeral. There is resolution for some characters, but not for others, as so often happens in reality. I don't read tragedy often. I find that unless it is truly a good book, the emotional anguish isn't worth it. And I'm a sap. I love happy endings. To be fair, I prefer interesting happy endings to sentimental ones, but I still like the happiness, the comedy, the story ending with a wedding, or something like that. I like the reminder that there is hope in the world. This is probably why I don't like 1984 or Frankenstein, but really enjoyed The Handmaid's Tale.

And yet...The Casual Vacancy was well worth the read, and I feel better for having read it. I don't know if I'll feel inclined to re-read it. My tendencies towards depression mean that multiple re-reads of dark tragedies aren't really the best mental fodder. Still, having read it once, I can say that it is worth at least a single, thorough read-through. It will be painful, but it's the sort of pain that's good for you. If it prompts some good introspection, so much the better.

A side-note: It's really not for children, and I can't emphasize that enough. If you have a mature 16 or 17-year-old, maybe they could read it, but I was pretty mature at 17 and I don't think it would have been a good idea for me to read it then. 18+ is my recommendation. This is not the Harry Potter series. This is something entirely different. You can still tell it's Rowling--her style, though further developed through time and practise, is very evident. But this is not for children. It's also not for those readers who are easily offended by characters who swear, or who have idealized views of the world that they prefer to keep.