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

After finally getting home after a tiring fifteen hour day, I can finally sit down and blog about Richard II, by the ever-popular William Shakespeare.

Judging the by the title, fans of the YouTube series “Epic Rap Battles of History” will know what I’m referring to. For those of you who have no clue what I’m referring to, here’s a link to the specific rap battle I though of while reading Acts One and Two of Richard II:

The reason I think of this video as I read this or any other Shakespeare work is because I do agree that it’s hard material to understand. There’s a very unique rhyme scheme and pattern that’s followed, and the words and manner of speaking from Shakespeare’s time are eons different than those of today.

The linked video is mainly for entertainment purposes, but it does show state a valid point: Shakespeare’s work is timeless. No matter what age, I feel that classes around the world in every school will always read some Shakespeare. His style is just that influential and important to classical and modern English literature. Although it can be extremely challenging and very hard for some to sit through, it’s just a section of literature that’s going to be around forever.

As for Richard II, I enjoy the fact that two men are posed against one another in a sort of “battle of / for honor.” It sets up the play for some interesting plot points and twists involving the two men and the people they may meet on their journeys into the unknown. Richard II serves as a sort of mediator in the beginning, determining how the two men will live for the next couple of years and naming the consequences and what can be gained as well. I’m excited to see how this play ends, even thought it means navigating through Shakespeare’s tricky language!

When I first started to read Richard II, I found it most difficult to keep up with the familial relationships. I didn’t think it would be that hard to figure out, being that my copy of the play has a family tree at the beginning. However, even after looking it over I was still confused. While reading, I was constantly looking back at previous pages to check who was who and how they were all related. Who knew it could be so convoluted?!

Once I overcame that obstacle, I noticed something about those familial relationships – that regardless of whether they were related or not, some family members treated others just like they would treat a stranger. Nepotism certainly was not a major influence in any part of the play thus far. I noticed it at first when King Richard was giving the sentences to both Mowbray and Bolingbroke. He ends up banishing Mowbray for life and Bolingbroke, who is his cousin, for six years. Yes, it appears that he gave Bolingbroke (who was originally given ten years) the better end of the deal. However, Bolingbroke’s father and King Richard’s uncle, John of Gaunt, is old and will most likely die before his son returns. By shortening the time, I feel that King Richard did not truly pity his uncle because if he did he would have made it significantly shorter, so that he would be alive when Bolingbroke was to return. Another instance where I noticed a lack of care for each other is when King Richard hears that John of Gaunt is dying. One would assume that this would sadden the King, but for his own selfish reasons, he finds happiness in his uncle’s death. He plans to take all of John’s belongings and use them to fund the war in Ireland. Yet another interesting relationship was that of Bolingbroke and his uncle, the Duke of York. Bolingbroke addresses the Duke with respect, but the Duke of York is extremely displeased with Bolingbroke’s return to England, prior to the completion of his six years. The Duke says “I am no traitor’s uncle, and that word ‘grace’/In an ungracious mouth is but profane./ Why have those banished and forbidden legs/ Dared once to touch a dust of England’s ground?” (2. 3. 92-95). Although they are related, the Duke of York has no problem with scolding him for what he has done.

The family dynamic displayed in Richard II is not the kind that I am used to reading about, which is probably why these particular parts bothered me. I guess I will have to keep reading to see if my opinion changes!

I’m afraid I must agree with the majority of posts in my dislike of Shakespeare in general.  I have read and seen various Shakespearean plays and, quite frankly, have not enjoyed any of them.  Maybe it’s my lack of knowledge or interest in old words and expressions or my lack of patience in general, but I can’t seem to emotionally connect.  Unfortunately, I found this piece to be just as unbearable, if not more so due to its complex historical context.

I can’t help but question the relevance of this to today, save for the historical significance.  I don’t find any of the characters to be relatable as they were to some extent in Don Juan.  While both use stock characters to some extent, I feel as though Shakespeare’s characters are more complicated and, thus, more difficult to identify with.

I don’t mean to attack the piece as a work of literature-it certainly employs beautiful language.  I can respect it as a piece, but it’s just simply more analysis than I find enjoyable.  However, hopefully the magic of theatre will bring it to life when we all see it performed.

-Jacqui Larsen

Something I noticed as I was reading the first two acts was that Henry Bolingbroke is King Richard II’s foil. Henry brings out the true flaws of Richard. Henry is a brave man willing to risk his life to prove his beliefs true. For example in Act 1 Scene 1, he agrees to duel Thomas Mowbray just to prove to Richard that Mowbray is a criminal. On top of that he is willing to lead a rebellion to take over Richard II’s throne. If he were to fail he would have to give up his life for committing treason. Richard describes Henry as a person who was loved by the lower class, “Observed his courtship to the common people; How he did seem to dive into their hearts With humble and familiar courtesy… (1.4.?)” In the end when Richard leaves to go to Ireland, Henry is able to convince people under Richard to join his rebellion. On the other hand, Richard is completely different.  He is not fit to wear the crown. He does not listen to the advice of his family members like John of Gaunt. Rather he is easily swayed by his selfish advisors. Richard is a big spender and has emptied the funds of England. To fund his war in Ireland, he decides to borrow money from the wealthy and tax the lower class. There is no question that Richard is hated by most of society. In the end Henry’s heroic traits magnifies Richard’s flawed traits.

Reading the play, Richard II by William Shakespeare, I couldn’t help, but feel that this was lacking in quality compared to other famous Shakespearean plays like Romeo and Juliet, Othello, or Hamlet. The story of the tyrannical King Richard II and his acquisition and leadership of the throne is not as engaging as some of Shakespeare’s other well known works.

I find that, given the material of the play and the royal history of the text, Shakespeare was doing the best he could with the subject matter. Let’s face it, not many people could make a story like Richard II engaging, but Shakespeare still manages to build tension with such scenes as when the two combatants challenge each other to a duel. Also, sudden events like when Richard II calls off the duel leave readers wondering about his motives and what he’s thinking in his leadership. This questioning of authority allows the readers of the play to make their own opinion about Richard II’s leadership and if he is deserving of the title.

All in all, I feel Richard II is an excellent read, but I find it lacks the certain Shakespearean quality that other plays capture. I feel that the subject matter of the play is its most lacking point and that the text is not as engaging as some of Shakespeare’s other works.