Customer Reviews

Richard III (Folger Shakespeare Library)

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Shakepeare's Richard is evil and manipulative to such an extreme degree that even his physical deformity cannot match up to the inner deformity that is revealed to the reader/audience in his private soliloquies. Having been portrayed as a conniving usurper to power by Thomas More during the early Tudor era he is actually savaged by Shakespeare and his legacy in historical terms has become one with the characterization that the bard gave us.

Richard is a muderous liar who kills anyone who gets in his way and he is contrasted with the righteously portrayed young Henry VII who returns from France to set things right.

The play is a wonderful read and study in Machiavellian manuevering for powers sake.

From the setting up of his brother Clarence to the murder of the young Princes in the Tower Richard who takes the audience into his confidence gradually becomes as appalling a character as Shakespeare ever created.

Much of what is later revealed of the capacity for people to scheme against their fellows in Claudius and Iago in the respective tragedies of Hamlet and Othello is begun here in Richard III.

It may not be Hamlet, but Richard III is still one of the finest works of literature ever created, in any medium. It's a classic piece of Shakespearian (and therefore, literary) character development, full of irony, wordplay, nuance, tension, imagery, and jaw-dropping poetic virtuosity. Shakespeare's Richard III is simply one of the most hypnotic and effectively portrayed characters of all time- he's a calculating, ruthless, cooly charismatic megalomaniac with bitter past and a knack for heroic feats of rhetoric. He's the quintessential antihero, a thoroughly despicable human being who is nonetheless incredibly fun to root for. Witnessing his swift, ruthless rise to power is a sheer visceral rush, and his monologues are deftly conceived works that drip with side poetry, cutting humor, and an almost charming sort of egotism. Reading or watching the play, one feels like they're the wicked king's confidante and co-conspirator, being allowed the unique privilege of peering into the amoral genius' twisted soul. The experience is exciting and cathartic. Of course, there's more to this play than one great character- the plot (which offers a seething glimpse of a chaotic post civil war England) is complex and engrossing, and sees Shakespeare hurling satirical darts at the corruption and pretensions of the nation's leaders. By allowing Richard to succeed by appealing to the greed, lust, and folly of those around him, Shakespeare sends a powerful warning about the cyclical nature and bottomless pitfalls of political villainy and oppression. At the same time, he paints a grim portrait of the ultimate outcomes of greed, egotism, selfishness, vengeance, and megalomania that still rings true to this day (and will probably do so until our species is extinct). Classic.

I teach British Literature and find the price is right for my students, the book size is a bit too small, and the intoductory and closing notes and essay are very good.

The play's appeal is disturbing. The self-proclaimed "naked villain", the murderer who knows neither pity nor regret, the conniving and lying viper is by far the most interesting character of the play. Richard's main merit is having Shakespeare speak for him. By virtue of spending more time on stage than any other character, Richard commands disproportionate attention from Shakespeare and enjoys the good fortune of Shakespearean language. From "the winter of our discontent" to "my kingdom for a horse", almost all memorable expressions are Richard's. For all his macabre plots, he is playful with language. He puns (as when he is treating "naught" as "naughty" in response to Brakenbury who is leading Clarence to the Tower). He cleverly finishes Margaret's long diatribe against him with a single "Margaret", sending the volley of her curse right back at her. He shows the widest range of emotion, from self-assured wisecracking to rambling rage.

For all his scheming evil, Richard has some remarkably attractive qualities. He can be disarmingly honest with himself and with the audience: he is surprised that Anne may see in him a "marv'los proper man" (he sees no such thing), he is fully aware that his "all not equals Edward's moiety" and that he "most plays the devil". Such self-reflection adds another dimension to Richard and compares favorably with simple self-involvement of some 20th century villains - certain heads of Communist and Nazi states. He is anything but a coward: at the end of the line, unhorsed, he continues to fight Richmond and despises Catesby's suggestion to withdraw.

The unquestionable evil that finds ways of being attractive creates an unsettling tension and sense of imbalance. Perhaps this is one of the qualities of great literature: it unobtrusively stirs up the embers of the reader's soul using its only poker - art.

I chose this Folger edition of the play because I have used these editions ever since I was a drama student in high school. I always like the way the footnotes and definitions of obscure words are interspersed with each page of text. These are among the most readable editions because one can quickly find the footnotes while reading, without interrupting the reading to flip to another page. Footnotes tend to be very small in print in some other editions, as well. The type set or font here is of a size that makes for ease in reading.
Of course, one should read many of the fine editions of other paperback and hardbound publications of Shakespeare to get to know the plays in depth. But the Folger PB copies are well-priced, and a very good choice for a first reading of any play.

The book was in fine condition. It had a name on the side though, and some very odd notes inside. But it was still in good condition besides those markings. I got it in remarkable time too. This was a last minute addition to the class I'm in and it showed up promptly so I didn't miss much.

..the winter of our discontent, made glorious summer by this son of York."
Richard's soliloquy is quite draconian from the beginning and sets the stage for a tragedy only Shakspear can pull off.
This play, focuses on Richard III's Machiavelli pursuits and determination to crop the crown from all who stands in his way- kin, no exception.
He prose is superb, and his timing excellent. He is able to woo lady Anne moments after killing her husband - his brother - and build alliances only to depredate them, for his selfish gains.
Quite stirring, and at the same time quite revulsive.
What better recipe can you want?

You could put together a real rogue's gallery of memorable villains from Shakespeare's plays: Iago, Lady MacBeth, Claudius, Regan and Goneril. Yet can any compare to that master of mischief, Richard III?

It's the 1480s, and England's bitter War of the Roses is finally at an end. Richard, Duke of Gloucester, remains sore. He may have helped his brother Edward to the throne, but now he wants it all. So he plots to do away with his brothers, nephews, and all else in his path. Yet his success will prove his undoing in this complicated morality tale.

One of Shakespeare's great political plays, written when he was just starting out as a playwright circa 1591, "Richard III" is even more dynamic and gripping as a character study. To me, the two key scenes in tracing Richard's character are dialogues with two women, Lady Anne in Act I and Queen Elizabeth in Act IV.

In the first instance, we see a fiend working at the top of his game. He has just slain Anne's husband and father-in-law. Now he offers her his hand in marriage. Anne is initially hostile to say the least, but Richard is so smooth and crafty, lying that he killed them because of his jealous love for her, that she leaves with a soft maybe that will turn to yes. "I'll have her, but I will not keep her long" he chuckles after.

In the second instance, Richard has disposed of Anne and is in search of a replacement. Now king, he is somehow less assured, and approaches Elizabeth far less craftily, asking her to help in the wooing of Elizabeth's daughter (and Richard's own niece) by playing not to her feelings but to her practical interests. Elizabeth plays Richard off so well here, one has to ask if it's the same man we watched work his evil magic on Anne.

It is, and I think this is what makes "Richard III" so great, beyond the fantastic language, satisfying comeuppances, and the luminous brutality of the main character. He's really not in it for the crown, but the evil he can do in pursuit of the crown. Hurting people, whether for gain or revenge, is his only joy in life, and his appetite proves his ruin. Centuries before modern psychology, Shakespeare seemed to have a handle on the concept of pathology and the criminal mind.

That the real Richard III was not such a character is hard to hold against this play. It's too close to perfect in its construction. About the only thing to be said against it are that the scenes not involving Richard go on a bit too long in parts, though even the sometimes tiresome Queen Margaret, who inveighs against Richard and his future victims, provides a sense of cosmic destiny fulfilled that makes re-reading especially pleasurable.

Despite being one of Shakespeare's longest plays, there little real fat here, and much to enjoy. With one of literature's most beguilingly twisted figures in the driver's seat, "Richard III" is a play that withstands the buffets of time and provides pleasure in its many convolutions.

This is Shakespeare's play about the villainous Richard III. It depicts Richard's vaulting ambition to become king and demonstrates the steps that he takes to ensure that, such as the death of his brother the Duke of Clarence and the murder of his cousins, the sons of his brother, Edward IV. His dismissive view of his wife, Anne Neville, too, is a part of his character.

His moves to consolidate his power, though, produce unrest. The play ends with his shouting for a horse and with his death in battle.

This play is one that I have a special feeling for. Many years ago, I had a small role as Brakenbury, the Lieutenant of the Tower. I had one good speech as I led a noble to his execution.

One observation: This play succeeds nicely as drama. However, as later accounts have shown, the Richard III of this play is not the Richard III of history. There are many questions still around, such as the true circumstances of the deaths of Edward's two sons. But the portrayal of Richard in this play simply does not stand up.

The book is sold at a bargain price, but the font is too small for easy reading, and the paper is of poor quality.