Shakespeare’s, Richard III depicts the unscrupulous rise to power and ensuing short reign of Richard III of England. Through all of his plays, Richard is becoming known as the perfect villain for the way he raises to power. We know that Richard is obviously a villain by the way he single-handedly orchestrates all of the chaos and violence throughout the course of the play. However, Richard III makes the readers reevaluate the meaning of what a hero really is. As malevolent as he is, there is no question that he is the play’s protagonist. He is motivated by self-interest and the play’s plot is ultimately developed around his battle to become the king and remain in power over the people. The reader’s get in depth looks at his character and they almost develop a false sense of sympathy for the jealousy and pain that he had endured, while blatantly disregarding the fact that he is a murderer. On the other hand, he can be viewed in some aspects as the hero of the play. As crazy as this may be, Richard shares some noble qualities that heroes have. During his rise to power, he displayed perseverance and courage in a way that was never thought possible.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines a villain as, “a character whose evil actions or motives are important to the plot.” According to this definition, making the argument for why he is the play’s villain is quite simple. It is apparent that Richard will stop at nothing to achieve his ultimate goal whether it is betraying his own flesh and blood or killing someone to rise to power. While speaking to his brother, Clarence, who is in jail, he says, “Well, your imprisonment shall not be long; I will deliver or else lie for you. (RIII 1.1.10) Richard is as tricky as he is scheming. While it...
... middle of paper ...
...Richard makes a number of costly choices. The most apparent mistake he makes throughout the play is his child like persistence to “prove a villain.” He tries to prove the latter so much; it in turn does the opposite. This tragic flaw ultimately brings forward his greatest mistake throughout the play.
There are very considerable arguments on both sides for whether Richard is the play’s most obvious villain or the unsung tragic hero. Tying them together, I feel that although he meets all of Aristotle’s requirements to be called the tragic hero, the argument proving he is the villain is far more convincing. Richard’s display of malevolence and manipulation are enough to prove intent. To be called classified as a tragic hero would give readers a false sense of his character and would be a complete misrepresentation of how Shakespeare made him out to be.
One cannot escape one’s fate. The theme of fate and freewill is central to William Shakespeare’s play Richard III, in which Richard III battles with the two in his quest for the crown. Richard seeks to escape his fate as a deformed and unfinished hunchback by using what little power he has to gain more power and respect. Although Richard thinks that he is acting on his own free will, fate still controls him throughout his journey. In addition, Richard’s fate is expressed in the form of a curse that Margaret delivers as punishment for his crimes against her and her family. Even though everyone sees Margaret as an irrational person, her curses against Richard and several other people end up coming true. Although Richard’s fate comes true, free will is still seen throughout the play, namely in the struggle of conscience.
The real tragedy of Richard III lies in the progressive isolation of its protagonist. From the very opening of the play when Richard III enters "solus", the protagonist's isolation is made clear. Richard's isolation progresses as he separates himself from the other characters and breaks the natural bonds between Man and nature through his efforts to gain power.
The most important question to ask about The Tragedy of Richard the Third is whether or not the work can be considered a tragedy in regards to Richards’s fate. Certainly, all the people around Richard have had very bad luck, from his brothers, to his nephews, to the very men who fight for him, and even his poor wife. But is Richards death something he deserves, or is he just simply a victim of circumstances? Aristotle claims that a tragedy is the downfall of a noble hero, usually through some combination of hubris, fate, and the will of the gods. The tragic hero's encounters limits, such as human flaws like greed or ambition, fate or nature. He goes on to say that says that the tragic hero should have a flaw or make an error in judgment. The hero need not die at the end, but must undergo a change in station. Also the tragic hero may begin to understand something new about themselves or the world, but still ends tragically. For Richard the III, the only tragedy seems to be those of his own creating.
Gifted with the darkest attributes intertwined in his imperfect characteristics, Shakespeare’s Richard III displays his anti-hero traits afflicted with thorns of villains: “Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous / By drunken prophecies, libels, and dreams” (I.i.32-33). Richard possesses the idealism and ambition of a heroic figure that is destined to great achievements and power; however, as one who believes that “the end justifies the means”, Richard rejects moral value and tradition as he is willing to do anything to accomplish his goal to the crown. The society, even his family and closest friends, repudiate him as a deformed outcast. Nevertheless, he cheers for himself as the champion and irredeemable villain by turning entirely to revenge of taking self-served power. By distinguishing virtue ethics to take revenge on the human society that alienates him and centering his life on self-advancement towards kingship, Richard is the literary archetype of an anti-hero.
William Shakespeare was the greatest dramatic director of his time, and today is still possibly the greatest playwright to ever live. His dramatic works allowed the people of his time to understand what was wrong with society, and enjoy all of the things that were right about it. The messages he wished to convey still echo and resonate in the minds of anyone who has witnessed a Shakespeare play in today’s world. “The early plays are filled with life and vitality, praising and glorifying the virtues of true love, even when in the presence of deep tragedy.” (Terrall) Throughout all of his plays, he is sure to include two character types: a protagonist and an antagonist. Within each individual play, the protagonist is relatively easy to pick out. The antagonist, or villain, on the other hand, is not always so simple to perceive. Typically the villain in most of Shakespeare’s plays is male, and he will often be close to the protagonist in some form or another. Villains from Shakespeare’s Othello, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and Hamlet are depicted in much the same way throughout each play; the three most influential villains, and those that will be analyzed are Iago from Othello, Puck out of A Midsummer Night’s Dream and last but not least, Claudius in Hamlet.
The undeniable pursuit for power is Richard’s flaw as a Vice character. This aspect is demonstrated in Shakespeare’s play King Richard III through the actions Richard portrays in an attempt to take the throne, allowing the audience to perceive this as an abhorrent transgression against the divine order. The deformity of Richards arm and back also symbolically imply a sense of villainy through Shakespeare’s context. In one of Richard’s soliloquies, he states how ‘thus like the formal Vice Iniquity/ I moralize two meanings in one word’. Through the use of immoral jargons, Shakespeare emphasises Richard’s tenacity to attain a sense of power. However, Richard’s personal struggle with power causes him to become paranoid and demanding, as demonstrated through the use of modality ‘I wish’ in ‘I wish the bastards dead’. This act thus becomes heavily discordant to the accepted great chain of being and conveys Richard’s consumption by power.
Richard is an actor, a fully evil actor, who through his mastery of the stage has come to appreciate his skill. Richard Moulton, in his Shakespeare as a Dramatic Thinker, proclaims Richard's wonder at his own command of the stage: "Richard has become an artist in evil: the natural emotions attending crime-whether of passionate longing, or horror and remorse-have given place to artistic appreciation of masterpieces" (40). And Robert Weimann, comparing Richard Gloucester to a character in Shakespeare's King John states: "Both characters exemplify a strenuous need to perform, 'toiling desperately' to play a role, 'to find out,' and, for better or worse, to take up arms against a thorny world" (130). Richard Gloucester begins taking up arms against his world in the opening scene as he finds himself shunned in the manners of friendship and love, being "cheated of feature by dissembling nature" (1.1.19), and he decides to take on the role of scoundrel: "And therefore since I cannot prove a lover / To entertain these fair well-spoken days, / I am determined to prove a villain / And hate the idle pleasures of these days" (1.1.28-31).
In today’s world the quality of the art form called writing is said to be somewhat diminishing, it is important for English literature to keep some studies of classic literature, such as Shakespeare. I think well rounded education must have a strong foundation in both modern and classical literature, for the foundation in classical literature, an in-depth study of Shakespeare’s works would be more than sufficient. Not only was Shakespeare so skilled in his writing that he has become a significant point in the history of literature, but a majority of his works were written on such basic human themes that they will last for all time and must not be forgotten.
Shakespeare constructs King Richard III to perform his contextual agenda, or to perpetrate political propaganda in the light of a historical power struggle, mirroring the political concerns of his era through his adaptation and selection of source material. Shakespeare’s influences include Thomas More’s The History of King Richard the Third, both constructing a certain historical perspective of the play. The negative perspective of Richard III’s character is a perpetuation of established Tudor history, where Vergil constructed a history intermixed with Tudor history, and More’s connection to John Morton affected the villainous image of the tyrannous king. This negative image is accentuated through the antithesis of Richards treachery in juxtaposition of Richmond’s devotion, exemplified in the parallelism of ‘God and Saint George! Richmond and victory.’ The need to legitimize Elizabeth’s reign influenced Shakespeare’s portra...
In every good novel known to man, there is a hero and also a villain. The villain tortures the world, the hero saves the day, and the hero lives happily ever after with the woman or man they fell in love with during their journey. In William Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet, it does not follow the original guidelines of the other novels. It is different. The reader has their own perspective of which Hamlet is ethical or evil for his actions throughout the play. The question all readers ask themselves is if Hamlet is considered evil because he murders evil people, or if he is considered a hero, although he is a murderer? This is a worldwide question for every reader. Although Hamlet chooses broad decisions based on impulse, he is ethical in his actions
Shakespeare's genius in character and plot development is exemplified in two of his most complex history plays, Richard II and Henry IV, Part I. With these sequential plays, Shakespeare vividly develops characters and sets up complicated plots by juxtapositioning people with others. Specifically, he first creates a binary opposition between Richard and Bolingbrook in Richard II, and then, recalls the plot and carries out an almost mirror image character contrast with Hal and Hotspur in Henry IV, Part I. However, in typical Shakespeare fashion, the seemingly mirror-image binaries of Richard/Bolingbrook and Hal/Hotspur break down with Shakespeare's character complexity.
Since the beginning of history, there have always been two opposing forces. The protagonist and the antagonist have been at one-another’s neck since biblical times. And as is typical, the story always ends with the good guy being victorious, and the bad guy defeated and demonized. Well, now it is time to show the bad guys some love. After all, what would all the famous heroes be without their respective villains? Nothing, that’s what. And as writer Larry A. Winters claims, “Readers love bad guys. Even bad guys who do the most heinous, horrible, evil deeds. Especially them.” Shakespeare new this, so he came up with some fantastic villains for his plays. In honor of antagonists everywhere, this essay is about the villains of some of Shakespeare’s most famous plays. The villains from Othello, Midsummer, and Hamlet, Iago, Love, and Claudius respectively, can be compared and contrasted in their motives, methods, and downfalls.
As the play’s tragic hero, Hamlet exhibits a combination of good and bad traits. A complex character, he displays a variety of characteristics throughout the play’s development. When he is first introduced in Act I- Scene 2, one sees Hamlet as a sensitive young prince who is mourning the death of his father, the King. In addition, his mother’s immediate marriage to his uncle has left him in even greater despair. Mixed in with this immense sense of grief, are obvious feelings of anger and frustration. The combination of these emotions leaves one feeling sympathetic to Hamlet; he becomes a very “human” character. One sees from the very beginning that he is a very complex and conflicted man, and that his tragedy has already begun.
Deceit, mystery, murder, and betrayal are all very captivating and together have the makings for a daytime soap opera. In this case, however, they are a part of the tragedy of Hamlet. The most regaling aspects of this play, despite the entertaining and compelling qualities just mentioned, are the revenge and the surprisingly unappealing nature of the main character, Hamlet. Throughout the play, Hamlet makes stupid choices that will ultimately lead to his own death, and the death of many around him. Hamlet should not be identified as a courageous hero seeking to avenge his father but instead as a coward lacking determination.
From all of the views shown in the early stages of the first act about Richard, we get the impression that he is a terrible person, with no respect or cares for anyone else. Even when we meet Richard, our opinions as an audience don’t change greatly, he shows himself as quite arrogant and sarcastic. How...