Richard the Second did turn out to be an interesting read. True, it did not have the easiness, or for better lack of word, “readability” of certain other texts, but when is Shakespeare intrinsically easy? Perhaps what makes this book interesting is how one man’s greed can destroy a family. By believing that his power is ultimate, which is a legitimate claim at the time, King Richard only takes it upon himself to enjoy the pleasures that come with kingship. King Richard, in abusing his power exposes his utter dependency on it. This in turn also exposes his fallibility as a king. Because he uses so much of his power, he does not see the repercussions of his actions. Perhaps this is why the common folk do not support King Richard as much as Bolinbroke. His tyrannical nature forces most people who are with him to often be against him, as we see with his uncle, the Duke of Gaunt.

        At the same time, we can also see an pragmatist in King Richard. He does not take the deathbed of his uncle seriously. In a manner similar to Don Juan, King Richard is only concerned about The Duke of Gaunt’s property, which he plans to use to help fund the war. As we clearly see, King Richard does not mourn the loss of a relation. This may be a result of, similar to Don Juan, King Richard being enchanted with his own throne. I believe Shakespeare’s genius is in creating a king who is very eloquent, but crude in action and in creating Bolinbroke, whose words carry much less weight than his actions.

          It’s a tragedy that Shakespearean language is hard to follow and even harder to bind with the rest of the story. That being said, King Richard II is a very well crafted play that reflects much of Shakespeare’s skill as a playwright.

                                                 —Jessen Thomas