Game of Suitors

“He meant it this time. He was furious with the Queen for her excitement over the French suitor, and of course what she had said of him had been reported to him. He was not going to allow himself to be so humiliated before the whole Court and dance attendance on her while she archly prepared herself for her meeting with the Duc d’Anjou, who seemed likely to succeed where he had failed.” (Holt, Pg. 222)

I chose this scene to analyze because I feel like it really establishes Elizabeth’s character, and the impact her actions have on the nobles surrounding her. Here we see Elizabeth’s well-known tendency to entertain many suitors. It is clear from Robert’s ‘furious’ reaction that he is displeased with Elizabeth for rejecting him in favor of the Frenchman. And as we can see this in the follow statement from Lettice, “Fate was favoring me. This was my triumph. I had won.” (Holt, Pg. 222) she uses Robert’s anger at the Queen’s favor of another suitor to help her convince him to marry her, showing that Elizabeth’s game of suitors can sometimes provoke the men she manipulates in a negative way. But it also shows Elizabeth’s skill at manipulation; when it says the Duc is ‘likely to succeed where he had failed’, we know Robert believes the Duc actually stands a chance at marrying Elizabeth- something we know is false, as Elizabeth never married; the Duc is just another pawn for her to play with, entertaining his flirtations so that she may get what she wants from him. Also, I like the phrase ‘dance attendance on her’, because I feel the mental image of Elizabeth’s little game of courting as a dance is extremely fitting; she swaps partners frequently, going to and fro between them and making them feel as if she loves them until she is satisfied, then moving on to the next.

‘Queen’ Elizabeth? Hardly

“Robert, I don’t know how to do this.” she said, in a small voice. “I can’t even remember how to get to the King’s rooms from the great hall. If someone doesn’t walk before me I’ll get lost. I don’t know how to get to the gardens from the picture gallery, or from the stable to my rooms. I... I’m lost here.” (Gregory, Pg. 35)

This quote was the moment I realized there was something very wrong with this novels depiction of Elizabeth. The way she delivers this line- ‘in a small voice’- paints her as helpless and frightened, which is the complete opposite of Queen Elizabeth. We see her here, nervous and quivering and relying on a man to guide her. Granted, it’s in a fairly mundane situation, and it’s entirely possible that the real Elizabeth could plausibly have gotten lost; but I refuse to believe she would openly act so helpless. This is where I realized Elizabeth in this book was going to be nothing but a typical helpless damsel, and it only gets worse from here...

The Fall of Caesar's Character

So after our discussion about the HBO series in class on Monday- and of course after reading the first two acts of the play- I started thinking about the potential differences between the show and the play. So to that end, my discussion question would have to be 'How similar or different are the show and the play?' for example, are the reasons for the assassination of Caesar as selfish and morally gray as they were in the tv show, or is he more of a clear villain? Or do they not adequately explain why he had to die? I think discussing this would help us gain more of an understanding of whether Caesar was truly an evil man, or if he suffered from the same defamation of character that Richard III did.

Richard, Who Shalt Be King Hereafter

I chose this gif because it is from the 2015 film adaptation of Macbeth. As I read the remainder of King Richard for class, I was surprised to find myself thinking that at its basic level I find it rather similar to Macbeth. While there are certainly enough key differences to mark them as two different stories, there's quite a few points I found reminiscent of each other:

• During a time of peace, the titular character (Richard/Macbeth) ends up plotting to murder his way to the throne and become King
• Said character hires murderers to kill someone close to him (in Richard's case, Clarence, in Macbeth's, Banquo) as part of this plot
• They also then kill the King 
• (I'll grant you, this one's a little bit of a stretch; Macbeth literally stabs King Duncan, while Edward dies of illness; Richard's news of Clarence's untimely death is implied to cause Edward's health to deteriorate critically, but this still makes the 'murder' indirect)
• After their ascent to the throne, Macbeth/Richard become increasingly paranoid and rapidly alienate what allies they had, leading to a full-on rebellion
• There is a final battle in which Macbeth/Richard are killed by the man who then takes the throne, Malcolm/Richmond.

The Portrait of Villainy

The thing I found most interesting about this reading occurred in the second chapter, when Grant and the Surgeon are discussing Richard III, who is also- of course- our key point of discussion in class as of last time. Grant is examining a portrait of the late King, and invites his Surgeon to do so as well. As they do, the following exchange occurs:

‘Who is it?’ the surgeon asked.
‘Richard the Third.’
‘Really? That’s interesting.’
‘Did you know that he had a withered arm?’
‘Had he? I didn’t remember that. I thought he was a hunchback.’
‘So he was.’
‘What I do remember is that he was born with a full set of teeth and ate live frogs. Well, my diagnosis seems to be abnormally accurate.’

I immediately found myself relating this to an issue I'd seen raised online earlier about Disney; specifically about how the villains are often malformed or bearing unique, striking features in comparison to the protagonists, who often feel rather generic and cookie cutter. Take for example withered and eerie appearance of the Queen from Snow White when she disguises herself as an old woman, the muscular, big-jawed and big-toothed face of Clayton from Tarzan, or the gaunt, dark-toned and (obviously) scarred form of Scar from The Lion King.

With the occasional exception, of course.

Obviously, there's no direct relation, since as far as I'm aware there's no Disney film about Richard III. (Not yet, anyway.) But it did make me think about how so often we twist the image of someone we perceive as evil into some sort of crooked, twisted creature whose outsides reflect their darker insides. The idea of Richard III as having a hunched back, a withered arm, and eating live frogs paints him as more monster than man, a caricature of his perceived villainy. I just found it quite funny that this odd description of Richard makes him appear almost as though he was an animated Disney villain, or a monster of legend. I feel like it says a lot about how we view villainous figures that we turn them into such deformed, hideous things when in reality they may not have been nearly so twisted- after all, I've certainly never heard about Richard III having a withered arm/hunch back/an appetite for live frogs. It could certainly be true, but I've still never heard it before.