Shakespeare's History: Richard III

“A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!"
Richard III has such incredible control over every aspect of his life, and even controls the lives of others around him. He has a brilliant mind and is master at using language and betrayal to his advantage. The only real challenge Richard faces in the play is when another young man who is good with words converses with him. They have a little verbal dual, and the only thing that saves Richard is his position of power over the man, which forces him to back off and show Richard some respect.
Richard’s only vulnerability is exposed during his final moment, in battle. Here, his tried and true tricks and mind games have no effect against physical battle. Richard is not even able to put up a fight once he has lost his horse. Similar to the story of Achilles and his tendon – nobody is completely indestructible – there is always one soft spot that, once hit, will bring them down immediately. It is ironic that he can overcome the most incredible situations he gets himself into (murder after murder on top of murder), yet he is defeated when he simply has no horse to ride on.

Shakespeare creates this history simply by following the events of the times. This play could be considered completely factual, however, there is some bias to it. Had Shakespeare viewed Richard III as an awesome ruler, the play may have gone down a little differently. By portraying Richard in a negative light, however, Shakespeare is playing it safe and complying with the general audience's opinion of the situation. In order for the reader to fully understand the play, it is important to know the basics of The Wars of the Roses, divided York and Lancaster, and Richard III's family tree.

I enjoyed this play probably the most out of all of Shakespeare’s other works we have read. Aside from the confusing details of the battles, I actually had a fun time reading this play. The characters seemed to have so much passion and emotion, it was truly entertaining. I also found that reading aloud to someone (my dog) helps a great deal. Speaking the words out loud forces me to focus on what I am saying rather than just allowing my eyes to scan the words while my mind is somewhere else. Another factor contributing to my enjoyment of this play was the class discussions. Understanding someone else’s interpretation and appreciation for a character (like how Mr. Klimas idolizes Richard) opens my eyes to look more closely at the genius of Shakespeare’s writing. I then, also, begin to have that same appreciation for his work.

Shakespeare's Tragedy: Macbeth

Shakespeare develops this tragedy by creating a character who is struggling through the worst battle one can endure – one against himself. This tragic figure along with the bloody imagery, murders, and the dark tone from the start of the play, “(Thunder and lightning. Enter three Witches) When shall we three meet again /In thunder, lightning, or in rain? / When the hurlyburly's done, / When the battle's lost and won. / That will be ere the set of sun.” makes for a master tragedy.

The three witches and Lady Macbeth have such control over Macbeth and know his weaknesses so well that it creates a sense of hopelessness and doom. They key in to Macbeth’s weaknesses (ambition, insecurity, and courage) and are able to convince him to believe and act upon everything they say. Along with the sense of hopelessness is the sense of doom, created by the dark settings, the blood, and of course the numerous unnecessary murders of men, women, and children.
Slowly we watch Macbeth destroy himself – or rather, allow himself to be destroyed – as the play unfolds. The witches test his ambition, knowing that if he has a goal, he will not be satisfied until he has attained his goal. They then set dangerous and ultimately impossible goals and watch as Macbeth struggles to reach them, knowing full well he never will. Lady Macbeth then attacks his insecurity by questioning his manhood, forcing him to feel as though he must prove himself to her. While a true man would have the confidence to defend himself and his morals, Macbeth’s insecurity causes him to doubt himself and question any morals he may have. Lady Macbeth knows he is insecure and therefore presents him with a different version of manhood (a murderer!), which Macbeth then feels obliged to fulfill.
Finally, Macbeth’s courage and bravery are tested by everyone, for he needs these qualities in order to attain these ambitions set for him – he needs the courage to kill and will then become king of Scotland.

I found that the language of Shakespeare’s Macbeth was wonderful; however, I did find the story to be rather boring and too similar to Richard III. It seemed to be the same old story – a power-hungry character sets out to rule the world, yet never achieves his goal, and only murders everyone along the way. Now don’t get me wrong, there were many differences, like Macbeth was a tragic figure and Richard was pure evil, I simply felt as though it was very predictable. This may also be due to the fact that we read the two plays one right after the other. There is an upside, of course, because this is Shakespeare – Macbeth is a classic and, as I have now noticed, is referenced everywhere! I am glad I have read the play and can now relate to it when it’s mentioned out of the classroom.

Shakespeare's Comedy: The Taming of the Shrew

"Fie, fie! unknit that threatening unkind brow, / And dart not scornful glances from those eyes, / To wound thy lord, thy king, thy governor: / It blots thy beauty as frosts do bite the meads, / Confounds thy fame as whirlwinds shake fair buds, / And in no sense is meet or amiable. / A woman moved is like a fountain troubled, / Muddy, ill-seeming, thick, bereft of beauty; / And while it is so, none so dry or thirsty / Will deign to sip or touch one drop of it. / Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper, / Thy head, thy sovereign; one that cares for thee, / And for thy maintenance commits his body / To painful labour both by sea and land, / To watch the night in storms, the day in cold, / Whilst thou liest warm at home, secure and safe; / And craves no other tribute at thy hands / But love, fair looks and true obedience; / Too little payment for so great a debt. / Such duty as the subject owes the prince / Even such a woman oweth to her husband; / And when she is froward, peevish, sullen, sour, / And not obedient to his honest will, / What is she but a foul contending rebel / And graceless traitor to her loving lord? / I am ashamed that women are so simple / To offer war where they should kneel for peace; / Or seek for rule, supremacy and sway, / When they are bound to serve, love and obey. / Why are our bodies soft and weak and smooth, / Unapt to toil and trouble in the world, / But that our soft conditions and our hearts / Should well agree with our external parts? / Come, come, you froward and unable worms! / My mind hath been as big as one of yours, / My heart as great, my reason haply more, / To bandy word for word and frown for frown; / But now I see our lances are but straws, / Our strength as weak, our weakness past compare, / That seeming to be most which we indeed least are. / Then vail your stomachs, for it is no boot, / And place your hands below your husband's foot: / In token of which duty, if he please, / My hand is ready; may it do him ease."

This speech finalizes Katherine’s character transformation. She makes a complete turnaround from being the “shrew,” totally against men and relationships in the beginning of the play, and at the end, during this speech, she actually defends the role of a wife.
Some of the main points which Katherine is arguing in this speech are that the husband is the “lord,” “king,” or “governor” in the relationship, and a wife who is “peevish” or “sullen” is a traitor to her ruler. It is the husband’s job to provide protection, support, and comfort to the family/relationship, while it is the wife’s duty to be obedient, loyal, and loving. Finally, she explains how these roles in the relationship are only natural, for the male body is strong and capable, mainly to provide the protection and support he owes to the wife and family. The woman’s body, on the other hand, is softer and weaker, able to provide love, yet not fully able to stand up to the husband.
But why does Katherine change her position so drastically? It is possible she simply gives up and become totally submissive to her husband, Petruccio. She may have just realized this was her only option, seeing as how Petruccio was not going to ease up on “taming” her. She may also have been jealous of Bianca, for men were attracted to Bianca, rather than herself. Katherine therefore dealt with these emotions as bitterness, almost hostility, towards all men. Once Petruccio comes along and chooses Katherine, however, she feels acceptable and is able to let her guard down. The most probable cause of this change, however, is Kate’s realization that the only way she can be happy is if she allows herself to accept the role she play in society, and that everything will fall into place afterwards.

The method Shakespeare uses to make this play a comedy is simply outrageousness, and completely ridiculous scenarios. The switching of roles and identities sets up for inevitable chaos, which in itself is humorously entertaining – to see others accidently set themselves up for awkward situations, trying to wiggle their way out, is funny! Not only do these characters alter their identities, but they all have such similar names ending in -io, which makes the situation even more overwhelmingly chaotic. In order to keep all of these characters straight the viewer/reader would be stressed, so all one can do is laugh at the absurdity.
Also, Katherine’s behavior is so out of character (for a woman) that it is shocking. It is entertaining to see something other than the norm, especially when they are making a fool of themselves. In Shakespeare’s time, this play must have gotten even more laughs out of the audience, for the Christian, patriarchal society of the times would have contrasted more with Katherine’s behavior than our, more progressive, society does today.

I enjoyed this play because it was honest humor. There was nothing stupid, distasteful, or referencing something that I had to look up. Shakespeare just jokes about typical human nature, which everyone can relate to. Reading something a little light-hearted and comical in school is something new to me, and was definitely a welcomed breath of fresh air. Normally, I’m trudging through a book with my brow furrowed, troubled by some tragedy that inevitably leads to a not-so-happy ending. Comedy is a genre we students are not all that familiar with or exposed to. It is very interesting to analyze what we find funny and why, and how authors like Shakespeare are able to understand this and make us laugh. I believe this genre deserves a bigger role in literature in school.