FFS, Rick.

I was struck with an overwhelming sense of "for f*ck's sake" upon coming across the exchange in act IV, scene two regarding Richard’s wish to kill the two boys, specifically lines 20-22: (Richard to Buckingham) “Shall I be plain? I wish the bastards dead, And I would have it suddenly performed. What sayst thou now?”. Which, to me, sounds like “Hey, kill those kids. Ok? Ok.” And when Buckingham offers his hesitations about the matter (lines 26-27: “Give me some little breath, some pause, dear lord, Before I positively speak in this”) Richard says, in short, “Lame. I’ll get someone else that’s not a wuss.”

I find it so outrageously bold and somewhat comical of Richard, though not completely out of turn for him, being that the play has sort of been prepping us all along for his general outrageousness- and I do remind myself that it is indeed a play- but to me it’s so silly that it takes me out of the moment and makes me hyperaware that it is really just a play.

This all brings me to that overarching theme of this course so far: the embellishment of historical tales and the degree thereof. We know already that the facts are skewed, but I wonder (my own disbelief aside) that, if they weren’t, would it or could it have happened so casually? Clearly, I haven’t the real answer to this, but what I do know  is this: there are more layers to this conundrum than just skewed facts- that is, their depiction that brings people to be so misinformed. If Shakespeare is going around saying this untrue thing happened in this absurd manner, then things get extra funky (and not in a good way).

I couldn't find an image with quite the right feel to accompany this blog post, so I made my own. 

Created using imgflip.com, image from television series "The Simpsons"

Uncertainty; A Disastrous Thought Process

There is nothing worse than uncertainty. While reading Act 2, Scene 4 of Richard III by Shakespeare I was reminded of an event that took place this past year concerning uncertainty, and what it leads to. In this scene, The Duchess of York starts to talk about how she hopes the young Prince had grown since the last time she saw him. Then Queen Elizabeth, young York, and the Cardinal all talk about how the Prince had not grown, and start to worry about his rule and if he is fit for the crown. This all leads to the unfolding of bad news coming from Dorset. As stated by Dorset, “Lord Rivers and Lord Grey are sent to Pomfret, with them Sir Thomas Vaughan, prisoners.” (Shakespeare, Act 2, Scene IV, Line 45) This act was committed by Richard III. Thoughts of tyranny, destruction, death, and massacre come to Queen Elizabeth’s mind. They are advised to retreat. This scene reminds me of the Wells Fargo scandal that happened recently. Many employees were faced with uncertainty when instructed to create fake accounts to make the bank more money. They feared the worst, loss of their jobs, and fell under the tyrannical spell of their managers. The managers instructed them to behave this way. According to CNN, “unrealistic sales goals placed on employees,” was the main cause of the major fraud committed by the company. (CNN) This later lead to a disaster for Wells Fargo, and illustrates how employees who were uncertain about moral principles lead to a disaster for the banking powerhouse. Uncertainty can lead to many negative events for people in power. As Shakespeare showed us, the uncertainty in young Prince Edward allowed for the twisted Richard III to take the thrown.

What Do The People Really Want?

"Woe to that land that's govern'd by a child" (2.3.11) This quote is said by a citizen who is talking with their neighbors. I thought it was odd of them to say this because they hadn't give the prince a chance to rule yet. They were so quick to say that their lives were about to be shit shows that they didn't stop to think the alternative. All the citizens thought that the prince would do better with a noble man by his side to guide him. "For emulation now who shall be nearest/ Will touch us all too near, if God prevent not./ O, full of danger is the Duke of Gloucester." (2.3.25-27) However in the same breath they are willing to say that the only man able to guide the prince is a danger to society. It is as if they aren't sure if they want a child to be the king on his own or if they want a child guided by a dangerous guardian to be king.

Did Shakespeare truly believe the rumor?

"But say, my lord, it were not register'd, / Methinks the truth should live from age to age, /
 as 'twere retail'd to all posterity, / even to the general all-ending day." (3.1.75 - 78). I don't think he really believed the rumor that Richard III killed his nephews. It almost seems like, through Prince Edward, Shakespeare is making a point to say that truth should be absolute and not ambiguous. I could be wrong.

Monster in Disguise

      Our class discussion on what tonypandy, literature, and history is becomes relevant the second we dive into Shakespeare's Richard III. Richard's opening monologue not only provides a brief summary of his intentions, but also reveals a story being told that discusses greed, righteousness, and deceit. The lines, "I...cheated of feature by dissembling nature, deform'd, unfinish'd, sent before my time...that dogs bark at me as I halt by them," solidify the imagery of Richard as a dastardly, ugly villain. His very appearance evokes a horror story (1. 1. 14-23). Shakespeare at every turn during act one makes Richard seem treacherous -- the second George leaves, he mutters to himself about his desire to kill him. When he receives news of Edward's illness, he just hopes he doesn't die before George can be murdered. Shakespeare also makes George seem gentle and a bit aloof: "We know thy charge, Brackenbury, and will obey," at least compared to Richard's standoffish attitude to Brackenbury and Hastings (1. 1. 105). Knowing the true events of Richard's life and ascent to the throne, it's fascinating to see how every detail is both familiar and utterly different. From our point of view, this seems like a text published with the goal of hiding the truth. Or, more unfortunately, this perception is the only truth that will be believed. Overall, the character we see here perfectly represents a blending of history and tonypandy, and for that reason alone this text is an interesting read.

Richard's description is reminiscent of Quasimodo.

https://images.penguinrandomhouse.com/cover/9781415910214

Richard's character exposed

"Arise, dissembler: though I wish thy death, I will not be the executioner" (1.2.170-171). This quote is said by Lady Anne to Richard III after Richard confesses his "love" to her. He tells her to stab him and she decides not to. I think this is really highlighting and helping us to understand the character of Richard in comparison to the other characters in the play. It also helps us to see what kind of marriage Lady Anne is getting herself into, as well as what kind of character Lady Anne is herself.

State of the Union... Sad!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSrEEDQgFc8

        I chose this clip from Meet The Press for the obvious reason that 'alternative facts' described by Counselor to the President, Kellyanne Conway parallel the theme of Tonypandy within The Daughter in Time. The manipulation of information is not only prevalent in news media and White House press briefings today, but was also prevalent in the Medieval ages, and was a tactic utilized by many to oust previous rulers.

        Ultimately, I agree with Grant's claim that King Richard III's portrayal as a monstrous-hunchback-mass killer is a distortion of the truth. The Tudor regime ascended to the throne by way of riding the coattail of a falsehood that King Richard III had maliciously tortured and eradicated his only opposition to the crown. When in reality, Henry VII rescinded the Titulus Regius Act and spread 'alternative facts' in order to ensure that his ascension to the crown would not be disputed, despite the fact that he may have been the product of a long line of illegitimacy.

An Embellished Historical Figure: The Psychedelic Progressive Rock Way

On the case of Richard III and how he is approached in The Daughter of Time, I am reminded, as I often am, of a Pink Floyd song; "Corporal Clegg". Without writing an essay on the song itself (although I would love to), I'll condense my reasoning to this: the corporal in question, to the knowledge of anyone outside of Roger Waters' head, is loosely based on Waters' father, but embellished and made more appropriate for the song at hand (goofy and off-beat, that is). Clearly the situation is dissimilar (Grant and Richard III vs. Pink Floyd fans and this song) but the parallels are there- different levels of embellishment for different purposes.

Pink Floyd - "Corporal Clegg", A Saucerful of Secrets (1968)

Not Everything Is As It Seems

Not  everything  is  as  it  seems...

After  reading  chapters  1-9  of  The  Daughter  of  Time,  my  view  of  Richard  III  has  shifted  slightly.  I  have  never  really  paid  too  much  attention  to  all  the  kings  and  queens  in  England  because  there  are  so  many,  and  most  have  the  same  names,  but  Richard  III  from  what  I  have  heard  of  and  have  been  told  in  this  class,  seems  like  a  terrible  hunchbacked  villain  who  will  do  anything,  including  murder,  to  get  the  throne.  While  reading  The  Daughter  of  Time,  Alan  Grant  takes  us  on  a  journey  through  his  discoveries  of  Richard  III  and  his  belief  that  Richard  is  neither  a  hunchback  or  a  villain,  but  a  seemingly  innocent  man  that  was  portrayed  that  way  by  the  opposing  side.  Based  on  the  evidence  Grant  and  Carradine  has  come  up  with  so  far,  it  appears  impossible  for  Richard  III  to  have  killed  his  brother's children  in  order  to  get  to  the  throne.  Granted  I  have  yet  to  finish  the  book,  and  it  is  a  work  of  fiction  and  mystery,  this  research  seems  to  ring  true.  It  would  not  surprise  me  that  some  of  our  history  would  be  slightly  fabricated  or  strayed  away  from  the  truth  in  order  to  have  an  upper  hand  on  the  common  people  or  to  make  someone  else  look  better.

Looking  at  the  picture below,  tell  me, what  do  you  see?  A  happy  couple  together  or  an  abusive  relationship  in  disguise?  Do  you  think  either  would  be  capable  of  murder?  Below  is the  infamous  picture  of  Jodi  Arias  and  Travis  Alexander.  In  the  early  2000's,  Jodi  Arias  was  convicted  of  the  murder  of  Travis  Alexander,  her  ex-boyfriend  but  continuous  lover.  Based  on  sight  alone,  I  would  not  have  guessed  that  either  of  them  would  be  capable  of  murdering  anyone,  let  alone  the  other.  Unfortunately  pictures,  like  history, do  not  always  reveal  the  truth.  Richard  III  could  have  been  an  innocent  man  convicted  of  something  terrible,  instead  of  the  villain  he  is  known  for.  Jodi  Arias  could  have  been  convicted  for  a  crime  she  didn't  commit.  We  may  never  know  the  truth  of  what  occurred  between  Richard  III  and  his  nephews,  along  with  Jodi  Arias  and  Travis  Alexander.

Works Cited:
The  Daughter  of  Time  by  Josephine  Tey
Jodi  Arias  Murder  Case
Image  from  Google  Images