Abstract When considering matters of discourse in William Shakespeare's plays, "The Tragedy of KingRichard II" and "The Tempest", KingRichard displays stronger leadership skills because he always speaks with eloquence. KingRichard speaks with a grace and style that cannot be matched by Prospero. This paper examines how speech is an important part of how a leader is perceived through KingRichard and Prospero.
From the Paper "This soliloquy also illustrates how Richard has come to terms with the fact that he is not destined to be king, as he once believed. He has resigned himself to the fact of how he must live out the rest of his life. This soliloquy is beautiful and heart wrenching. It is through Richard's speeches that Shakespeare is able to make Richard stand out. King Richard would be an ideal candidate for any political position in the world today. He was always able to deliver moving speeches and this is a valuable asset to any king. In fact, it is proof that a man's words can carry him far even if they cannot save his life."
Abstract The author compares and contrasts the rule of the two kings in Shakespeare plays, "Winter's Tale" and "The Tragedy of KingRichard III." The theme running through both plays is that power corrupts, and this is the theme that runs through both of these plays. KingRichard is portrayed as an absolute ruler destroyed by his thirst for absolute power. King Leontes, is a king more paranoid than perhaps even Lear who refuses to believe even the gods who say that his wife and friend are not involved in an adulterous relationship. He is also an absolute ruler who believes that he knows even better, than the gods themselves.
From the Paper "Shakespeare's Richard is a thoroughly rotten villain. This is made clear to us in Act One, scene 1. Angry over the limits of his physical deformity, and, perhaps, the low social status accorded him as the very sparest of spare heirs, Richard vows to overcome his limitations. In line 30 of this speech, Richard says, "I am determined to prove a villain." Most would agree that these are not the words of a person who has the best interests of his fellow human beings at heart. If one needs further proof, Richard goes on to describe a plot that pits his two brothers, Clarence and Edward, against each other - hopefully resulting in both brothers' deaths."
Tags: absolute, iii, power, richard, shakespeare, tale, winter
Abstract This paper questions the reasons for KingRichard II's demise, whether he was to blame, whether he was irresponsible and whether it was a sin to kill him. It reflects upon these issues and also discusses if whether despite his downfall brought about by his own actions, Richard grows as a character in the end.
From the Paper "King Richard is not a man of action and as the play advances and he gets into more and more trouble, his end approaches and he becomes most poetic of all. He shows himself to be a poet and a dreamer. At Flint castle he asks Aumerle ??.Shall we call back Northumberland, and send Defiance to the traitor, and so die?? And Aumerle replies? No, good my lord; let's fight with gentle words?? This is also an example of another cause of King Richard's downfall. He surrounded himself with flatterers and poor advisors. Richard ignores the only sound advice he gets from Gaunt's death bed and even wishes that the doctor would quicken his death so that he can seize Gaunt's land."
Abstract This paper examines how KingRichard I made significant progress during his reign in England and how, while he was king, he succeeded in gaining land for the Christians. It shows how he led the Third Crusade with great compassion and wisdom and how he was able to think in different ways in regards to strategy, which allowed him to conquer land and earn the respect of many. It also shows how his efforts allowed the Christians a safe pilgrimage to Jerusalem and how the land he conquered gave England strategic territory.
From the Paper "The Third Crusade is known as King Richard's ?great chivalrous episode.? 11 as well as the most "bloody and brutal" 12 of the eight crusades. Philip Augustus also took part in this Crusade. The two behaved like friends in public but were actually rivals. Despite the fact that Richard's expedition did not free the Holy Sepulcher, it did allow him the opportunity to demonstrate his courage. 13 This situation forced Richard and Saladin to come together and agree to put an end to the fighting. While they were negotiating, Saladin began to respect Richard. He even said that Richard was a ?man of honour and very brave . . . he plunges into the midst of danger and in his reckless indifference to his own safety.? 14 Indeed, Richard always displayed courage in the face of fear."
Abstract This paper examines two of Shakespeare's historical kings: Richard II and King Henry IV. The paper argues that Richard II was a king by divine right, whereas Henry IV was a Machiavellian king. The paper first assesses Richard's rule: he was not loved by his people or by those who served him; he did not earn his kingship, did not respect it and did not do anything in order to keep it. The paper contrasts this to King Henry IV, who was completely aware of his kingship and what he had to do to keep it; he acted aggressive, decisive and proactive. The paper then demonstrates how the characterization of these two kings demonstrates Shakespeare's unique ability to capture the diversity of humanity and create believable characters. The paper concludes that Shakespeare proves that kings are just like the rest of us--some of them capable and some of them negligent beyond belief. The paper quotes from both plays in order to supports its theses.
From the Paper "Richard II was a king by the divine right of kings and we only need to look at his actions to determine this fact. He would have never earned his kingship had it not been something that was given to him by right of his birth. In short, Richard is a bad king with no real vision. He never takes time to learn what it means to be king and, as a result, does not care about the responsibilities that come along with the title of being king. To make matters worse, he breaks laws and traditions that are essential to his own kingship and his bad behavior forces those under him to feel helpless, hopeless, and without direction. He does not care for the people and while he may have been an intelligent man, he was not strong in the way that a king needs to be strong. Undoubtedly, King Richard's strongest and best characteristic was his eloquence."
Abstract This paper explains that the figure Robin Hood is based on a real person, a king of England to be precise. The paper claims that an examination of the life of KingRichard, better known as Richard the Lionheart,will reveal the real tale of Robin Hood. The paper presents a biographical tale of the life of KingRichard. The paper contends that it is Richard's positive traits and goals that people remember about him; it is his virtue and heroism that lives in storybooks. Though the fairytale has changed and gained an element of fiction, the paper explains that the truth of Richard's conquest is evident.
From the Paper "Most people remember the character of Robin Hood from children's stories. When they think of him they recall a hero who "robbed from the rich and gave to the poor." What most people do not know is that the figure Robin Hood is based on a real person, a king of England to be precise. That character is King Richard I, better known as King Richard the Lionheart. Although Richard I did not, by the standards of the day, steal from "the Rich," historians have found a distinct connection between the lives of the two characters. Robin Hood lived during the 13th century, exactly one year after the time of King Richard's reign. Also, it is evident in the stories of Robin Hood that his main political goal is to "restore Richard to the throne after Prince John usurped it." Although most people are probably unaware of the connection between the two heroes, King Richard I had a very fascinating and interesting life. "
Abstract This paper examines the play, "Richard III", focusing on the main character, KingRichard III of England. It discusses whether he should be considered a villain and asks, "Did he repent in time?" It explains that, in the play, Edward IV is on the throne, but his brother Richard plans to usurp Edward and be crowned king. To accomplish this goal, he must manipulate and murder, but in the midst of all the chaos he creates, there are glimmers of a better man.
From the Paper "He has decided that since he is no good at being happy, he will become an outstanding villain. He will soon show just how power-hungry he is. His reasons for acting as he does seem thin, and at this point it is hard to imagine how any good traits could be spotted in such a man. Richard is intelligent and manipulative, and has the ability to lie through his teeth and bee believed. He convinces a just-widowed noble woman, Lady Anne, that she should marry him, even though she knows he murdered her husband. He has his trusting and na ve older brother executed. King Edward is already in poor health, and Richard uses Clarence s death to hasten Edward s death."
Abstract The life and experiences of KingRichard I of England are examined. Key topics of interest include continual family conflict, early development of military prowess, defense of English provinces in France and involvement in the Crusades.
From the Paper "Richard I was the son of two of the most interesting and formidable royal characters of medieval history. The marriage of his parents, Henry of Anjou and Eleanor of Aquitaine brought together an empire that included not only England, but half of France as well. Richard was the third son born to this union and as such did not expect to inherit his father's crown. Unfortunately, both of his older siblings died, leaving Richard in a position of contention for the throne with his two younger brothers. This paper will examine and discuss the life of Richard I and the events that caused him to be regarded as one of the strongest military Kings of medieval England."
Abstract This paper relates that Shakespeare's primary intent in "Othello" was to develop the villainous character of Iago, whose motives are represented as being highly complex and ambiguous, but villainous in the extreme. The author points out that Richard is shown to be a villain of the highest caliber, whose power-mad lust for the crown compels him to confirm his claim that, "I am determined to prove a villain". The paper concludes that Shakespeare portrays Iago and Richard in much the same light, as sociopaths who view others as merely objects representing obstacles in their path to fame and glory, which makes them villains by any definition.
From the Paper "However, much like Richard, Iago's ambition is the source of his villainy rather than his resentment at being overlooked for promotion, sexual jealousy or the racial prejudice he had consistently faced; rather: ?A man motivated by simple jealously and hatred would have no such need. He is not inspired by pure evil and desire to torment Othello either. In reality, Iago's main motivation, born out of an inferiority complex, is a desire to heighten his sense of superiority and power.? According to Agrawal, Samuel Coleridge's phrase, ?. . . motive hunting of motiveless malignity,? may best describe Iago's strange actions and behavior. "Motive hunting" exactly describes Iago's soliloquies. He continuously ponders over and tries to understand his emotions. It is clear that he wants to torment and destroy Othello. However, he is not sure of the motivations underlying that desire.? "
Abstract The paper describes how Thomas of Woodstock (the Duke of Gloucester) has been assassinated, before William Shakespeare's "Richard II" even begins. The paper elaborates that, despite being relegated to a back-story character, Thomas of Woodstock is mentioned early and often, en route to becoming the key symbol foreshadowing the downfall of KingRichard II himself. This brief essay discusses the importance of Thomas of Woodstock to the play and to the audience.
From the Paper "Before William Shakespeare's Richard II begins, Thomas of Woodstock (the Duke of Gloucester) has been assassinated. However, despite being relegated to a back-story character, Thomas of Woodstock is mentioned early and often, en route to becoming the key symbol foreshadowing the downfall of King Richard II himself. Thomas of Woodstock (not to be confused with one his supposed killers, Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk) has died suspiciously long before the opening of Richard II."
Abstract This paper concentrates on exploring why the Duke of Buckingham helped Richard III as extensively as he did to lie, cheat, steal, and murder his way to being king. It also explores why Buckingham left Richard III at a certain point after he was asked to arrange for the murder of Edward. The author argues that Buckingham left Richard not because of his conscience regarding the murder of the boy, but out of a fear that by helping the tyrant to gain his power, he would not get anything in return but his own death.
From the Paper "Shakespeare's "Richard III" was a play in the series of historical texts that also includes ?Henry IV.? With these texts, the author left the convention of setting his plays is exotic places like Athens and Italy, and concentrated on the theme of English history. Richard III was a monarch who is shown in Shakespeare's "Richard III" to have lost touch with reality more than a little bit in his quest for power, which has corrupted him deeply. At the end of the play there is little that can be done to redeem Richard III, such is his rejection of morality and his overriding ambition. These qualities caused Richard III to murder many of his own family members, and throughout the play he treats everyone as either someone to use or a potential threat. One of the people whom Richard III used was the Duke of Buckingham, who became his right-hand man during his quest for the throne."
Abstract This paper takes a look at William Shakespeare's play 'Richard III' and two movie versions based on this play. According to the paper, 'Richard III' is both a tragedy and a historical account of the short career of the last medieval English king. The paper discusses how Shakespeare's 'Richard III' depicts Richard and his "reign of terror" both unflatteringly and beyond historical accuracy.
From the Paper " In the movie version, "Looking for Richard," Al Pacino creates, directs and stars as Richard III's obsession for power, lust and betrayal through the streets of New York to the birthplace of Shakespeare to an emotionally charged production of Richard III (Richard III Society 1996) It is a presentation of Shakespeare with an untraditional format more accessible to the modern audience and with which this modern audience can relate better. The cast includes Estelle Parsons as Queen Margaret, Alec Baldwin as Clarence, Kevin Spacey as Buckingham, Winona Ryder as Lady Anne and Aidan Quinn as Richmond. Al Pacino also puts in the enthusiasm and help of Sir John Gielgud, Sir Derek Jacobi, Kenneth Branagh, Vanessa Redgrave, James Earl Jones and Kevin Kline in an attempt at making everyone enjoy Shakespeare and his tales truly timeless in exploring human nature. This version is different from the first two interpretations in that Al Pacino and his actors needed to break down the barriers, which render Shakespeare's history complicated and intimidating. Al Pacino allows his viewer to go behind the scenes and witness the actual process of acting. The heavier aspects of the play are made mild by informal shots of actors dealing with their roles in either a comic or heated forum. Al Pacino's methods of analysis are insightful, amusing and engrossing. He transcends the barrier between actors and their audience as he stands in London's legendary Globe Theater and the halls of New York City's Cloisters Museum (Richard III Society)."
Tags:king, england, Edward, lady, anne, society, civil, war, power, lust
An analysis of the Globe Theatre's production of William Shakespeare's "Richard II" looking at interpretations of the play and the politics it embodies.
Abstract This paper provides a personal interpretation the all original all-male production of William Shakespeare's "Richard II" at the restored Globe Theatre in London. Through an examination of the text, references, humour and pathos in the interaction of the characters, it looks at the transformation of the weak, arrogant monarch into the pathos-filled figure of the defeated king that is the centre around which the story revolves.
From the Paper "The historical walls around the play, the political background that serves to propel to plot forward is, in its way, nothing but that: mere background, a canvass onto which Richard's tragedy is painted in rich hues. And yet, I must hasten to add that this interpretation is not absolute: rather, it is my perception of the way the Globe production interpreted Richard II, and therefore it is that interpretation that I would argue for in this paper. As Brooker notes, ?while any number of valid interpretations is possible ? and so the celebration of these multiple readings for their own sake is misguided ? these various, contradictory meanings need to be argued for and supported if they are to extend beyond the microsphere of the individual reading.?"
Analysis of Shakespeare's play, "Richard III", and how the main character is able to win over the hearts and minds of the audience in spite of his evil nature.
Abstract This paper describes the four techniques used by Richard, in William Shakespeare's play, "Richard III", to win the love of the audience. Eliciting the audience's sympathy and then their collaboration, Richard's ability to charm and manipulate the audience depends are various elements; each is cited as a technique used by Richard to gain the audience's devotion.
From the Paper "One of Shakespeare's most memorable characters is a villain who will always be remembered for his outstanding intelligence, political intensity, and incredible language skill. Richard, Duke of Gloucester, a devilish man, who murders anyone who stands in his way, even innocent people. We ask ourselves how could anybody with a hypocritical, and deceiving nature win the hearts of the audience of so many generations: for at-least most part of the play. It is agreed then that normally one such a person would horrify and disgust one and all. However, Richard (I stress not King Richard) which will be clarified by the end of this essay; mesmerizes his audience with sly skill. He captures sympathy in his audience by convincing them that his physical deformities should excuse him of committing evil crimes. His alluring use of language is like a spell that is cast over the audience and sustained from the beginning of the play until Act IV. Richard is then able to charm his audience into a partnership of evil and corrupt manipulation. Moreover, Richard, distinguishable than any other villain, and deserves his title because of the four most vital techniques that he uses: through these techniques he is able to win the love of the audience. There are four specific techniques that are used by Richard, which will be explained in-order of importance throughout the essay. The key idea is that each technique adds to, enhances, and strengthens the effect of the situations and outcomes- to whoever is participating in the play (audience, characters etc.)."
Abstract This paper presents a candid account of the writer's opinion of the author, Stephen King. The paper provides examples from some of his literary works, illustrating his claimed genius. King's substance abuse is discussed, pointing out the influence it had on some of his novels. The writer concludes that, despite what anyone might say - King himself included, Stephen King is a master of literary form and, most of all, a master of the game of storytelling.
From the Paper "The genius that is Stephen King exists on many levels. The fact that he completed one of his highest praised novels, Cujo, well, higher than a kite, is brilliance in itself. If the man can write that well stoned out of his gourd, what could he do sober? Just looking at the cross-section of novels, short stories and even his new serial e-book, your average Stephen King fan will tell you ? the man can do anything. He is a literary god. But why? His alter ego, Richard Bachman, did not enjoy the level of success that Stephen King did. As the man, himself, asked, was it because the stories "sucked like an Electrolux"? Of course not. We?re talking about Stephen King ? or Dicky Bachman, as he called himself. The entire idea of the pseudonym brings forth the question, why do some authors achieve the level of success that Stephen King has? Is it really their writing? Well, Richard Bachman or no Richard Bachman, Stephen King's genius is evident in his every word ? ?luded, loaded or otherwise."
