One of his lesser known works, Shakespeare's Trojan play is also one of his most intriguing. Not quite a burlesque, 'Troilus and Cressida''s lurches in tone, from farce to historical drama to romance to tragedy, and its blurring of these modes, explains why generations of critics and audiences have found it so unsatisfying, and why today it can seem so modern. Its disenchanted tone, its interest in the baser human instincts underlying (classical) heroism look forward to such 20th century works as Giraudoux's 'The Trojan War Will Not Take Place' or Terry Jones' 'Chaucer's Knight'; the aristocratic ideals of Love and War, inextricably linked in this play, are debased by the merchant-class language of exchange, trade, food, possesion - the passionate affair at its centre is organised by the man who gave his name to pimps, Pandarus, and is more concerned with immediate sexual gratification than anything transcendental. The Siege of Troy sequences are full of the elaborately formal rhetoric we expect from Shakespeare's history plays, but well-wrought diplomacy masks ignoble trickery; the great heroes Ajax and Achilles are petulant egotists, the latter preferring the company of his catamite to combat; the actual war sequences, when they finally come, are a breathless farce of exits and entrances. There are a lot of words in this play, but very few deeds.

Paris, Prince of Troy, has abducted Helen, wife of Menelaus, King of Sparta. Led by the latter's brother Agamemnon, and his Machiavellian advisors Ulysses and Nestor, the Greeks besiege Troy, demanding the return of Helen. However, Achilles' dissatisfaction at the generals' endless politicking has spread discontent in the ranks. Within Troy, war takes a distinct second place to matters of the heart. While Paris wallows in luxury with his prize, his youngest brother Troilus uses Pandarus as a go-between to arrange a night of love with his niece, Cressida. When one of the Trojan leaders is taken prisoner by the Greeks, the ransom price is Cressida.

There is only one character in 'Troilus' who can be said to be at all noble and not self-interested, the eldest Trojan prince Hector, who, despite his odd interpreation of the quality 'honour', detests a meaningless war, and tries to spare as many of his enemies' lives as he can. He is clearly an anachronism, however, and his ignoble slaughter at the hands of a brutal gang suggests what price chivalry. Perhaps the most recognisable character is Thirsitis, the most savagely cynical of his great Fools. Imagine Falstaff without the redeeming lovability - he divests heroes and events of their false values, satirises motivations, abuses his dim-witted 'betters' and tries to preserve his life at any cost. Written in between 'Hamlet' and 'All's Well That Ends Well', 'Troilus' bears all the marks of Shakespeare's mid-period: the contrapuntal structure, the dense figures, the audacious neologisms, and the intitially deferred, accelerated action. If some of the diplomacy scenes are too efective in their parodic pastiche of classical rhetoric, and slow things down, Act 5 is an amazing dramatic rush, crowning the play's disenchantment with love (with an extraordinarily creepy three-way spaying of an infidelity) and war.

The New Penguin Shakespeare is the most accessible and user-friendly edition for students and the general reader (although it does need updating). Unlike the Oxford or Arden series, which offer unwieldy introductions (yawning with irrelevant conjecture about dates and sources) and unusable notes (clotted with tedious pedantry more concerned with fighting previous commentators than elucidating Shakespeare), the Penguin's format offers a clear Introduction dealing with the play and its contexts, an appendix 'An Account of the Text', and functional endnotes that gloss unfamiliar words and difficult passages. The Introduction is untainted by fashions in Critical Theory, but is particularly good at explaining the role of Time ('When time is old and hath forgot itself...And blind oblivion swallowed cities up'), the shifting structure, the multiple viewpoints in presenting characters, and Shakespeare's use of different literary and linguistic registers.

Troilus and Cressida is one of Shakespear`s many romances, and, like most of his romances, is a tragedy. Since time immemorial, Shakespears` works have been used as plays, literature and (least often) just casual reading. While Troilus and Cressida is one of the less known plays, it is no less a good one. It is based in Troy(as the name might imply)during the much renowned Trojan War. The valiant Troilus, son of the Trojan king is enamoured of Cressida, also of Troy. Meanwhile, the Greek hosts have laid siege to the city, and the warrior Achilles refuses to fight, encouraging further interaction between the two sides. Cressida, however, is the daughter of a Greek sympathizer(if that is the correct word)and may not be able to honour her commitment to the Trojan prince...

I think this is one os Shakespeare's most underrated plays, probably because of all the uncouth characters. Based on Chaucer's rendition of the story, T and C are Trojan lovers, and she is then traded to the Greeks in exchange for captive soldiers. Aside from this, the women of Troy are wanton and lustful, and the men are prowess driven. If you can deal with this, you will really enjoy Shakespeare's ability to wrap this into all kinds of twists and turns. It delivers a mixture of satire, comedy, romance, tragedy, and a semi-historical (in that people at the time probably believed the Trojan War really happened). Interestingly, this mixture of laughs and tragedy is reminiscent of war novels I have read about Vietnam. The romantic dimensions give this play its edge, and somehow WS manages to make it plausible in spite of all the killing and deceit going on at the same time.

The Two Noble Kinsmen was only partially written by Shakespeare. The primary author was John Fletcher, and Shakespeare seems to have been doing a rewrite more than a collaboration. As a result, you get two different styles of narration and development in the same story. The underlying tale follows very closely on the famous Knight's Tale from Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales. As a result, you get a three way perspective on Shakespeare that is not available elsewhere -- what his co-author did, what Chaucer did, and how Shakespeare handled similar problems in other plays.

Where the Knight's Tale was primarily a story about chivalry, love, and spirituality, The Two Noble Kinsmen is very much about psychology and human emotions. Like other plays that Shakespeare wrote, this one shows how conflicting emotions create problems when we cannot master ourselves. In this case, the two loving cousins, Palamon and Arcite, fall out over having been overwhelmed by love for the appearance of Emilia, Duke Theseus's sister. The play explores many ways that their fatal passion for Emilia might be quenched or diverted into more useful paths. The dilemma can only be resolved by the removal of one of them. This places Emilia in an awkward situation where she will wed one, but at the cost of the life of the other. She finds them both attractive, and is deeply uncomfortable with their mutual passion for her. In a parallel subplot, the jailer's daughter similarly falls in love with Palamon, putting her father's life and her own in jeopardy. Overcome with unrequited love, she becomes mad from realizing what she has done. Only by entering into her delusions is she able to reach out to others.

What most impressed me from reading this play is how much better Shakespeare was as a writer than either Chaucer or Fletcher. You can tell the parts that Shakespeare wrote because the language is so compact, so powerful, and so filled with relevant imagery. The tension is unremitting and makes you squirm.

By contrast, the Knight's Tale is one of the dullest stories you could possibly hope to read and admire for its virtuosity without experiencing much enjoyment. Although the same plot is developed, few emotions will be aroused in you. When Fletcher is writing in this play, the development is slow, the content lacks much emotion, and you find yourself reaching for a blue pencil to strike major sections as unnecessary.

In fact, this play would not be worth reading except for the exquisite development of the dilemmas that are created for Emilia. Her pain will be your pain, and you will want to escape from it as much as she does. In these sections, you will find some of Shakespeare's greatest writing.

I also was moved by the way several scenes explored the duality of cousinly friendship and affection occurring at the same time that lethal passions of love and jealousy are loose.

Although this play will probably not be among your 50 favorites, you will probably find that it will sharpen your appetite for and appreciation of Shakespeare's best works.

I also listened to Arkangel recording, and recommend it. The performances are fine, the voices are easy to distinguish, the music is magnificent, the singing adds to the mood nicely, and you will find your engagement in the play's action powerfully increased over reading the play.

When do you lose control over your emotions? What does it cost you? How could you regain control before harm is done?

May you find peaceful, positive solutions to all of your dilemmas!

I will be the first to admit this is not the "best" or the "greatest" play written by the bard, but it is still very worthy of his name, and incredibly beautiful! Kinsmen is a romance in the style of Shakespeare's other late plays, Pericles, Cymbeline, The Winter's Tale, and The Tempest (my favorite). In many ways it reflects his earlier works, namely A Midsummer Night's Dream, Hamlet, and The Tempest. It tells a wonderfully romantic story of two good friends who fall for the same girl (I know, sounds familiar, but trust me, it's a different take on the setup) in Athens. The poetry in it is lovely, the characters very well developed, and the plot is incredible. Many people haven't heard of this play as Shakespeare cowrote it with Fletcher, but belive me, it is still wonderful. Highly recomended.

The Arkangel Shakespeare series being issued by Penguin Audio is now halfway through the plays and the surprise is that was given preference to the remaining more familiar works. Co-authored by Shakespeare and Fletcher, this play remains an odd man out for several reasons. Based fairly closely on the "Knight's Tale" from Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales," it tells of two cousins, who just after swearing eternal friendship in one of Duke Theseus' prisons immediately fall in love with the same woman, Emilia, and become bitter rivals for her affections. One of them, Arcite, is exiled but returns in disguise; the other, Palamon, escapes with the help of the Jailer's Daughter, who goes mad for love of him; and...well, see for yourself. Of the play's 23 scenes, 7 and part of an 8th are attributed to Shakespeare, a 9th doubtfully so, and the rest to John Fletcher, who was probably handed over to Shakespeare to learn the ropes as it were. The Shakespeare parts are easy to spot: they are nearly impossible to understand without a heavily annotated copy of the text open before you! Even more so than in his late plays like "Cymberline" and "Winter's Tale," the syntax is so complex, the thoughts so condensed, that one might (and has) compared his writing with the late Beethoven String Quartets. As one of the scholars quoted in the excellent Signet Classic paperback edition of this play comments, the play is most unShakespearean in that none of the characters change over the course of the play. And I should add the subplot of the Daughter's madness is never integrated into the main plot. One scene, in fact, is devoted entirely to the description of some minor characters and might have been influenced by a similar and much longer sequence in "Seven Against Thebes." In short, do not play this for a casual listen; but be prepared to be challenged. Look especially for echoes of the earlier all-Shakespearean plays. The nuptials of Theseus and Hippolyta recall the opening scenes of "A Midsummer Night's Dream," the main plot that of "Two Gentlemen of Verona," the Daughter's madness of Ophelia, and so on. As for the actual recording, it would be difficult to better it! The voices of the two kinsmen (Johnathan Firth and Nigel Cooke) are easily distinguishable, Theseus (Geoffrey Whitehead) sounds advanced in years and noble, Emila (Helen Schlesinger) mature and alert, Hippolyta (Adjoa Andoh) vocally of African origins as perhaps befits the character, and all the rest as understandable as the text allows and "into" their roles. Thank you, Penguin, for this noble entry in a series that is getting better and better.

... the reviews for King Henry VIII by William Shakespeare (and all their other books as far as I can tell) as if different editions have the same content - obviously in the case of classics that is far from true.

... 3 editions of Henry VIII at this time: (1) Hardback edited by Gordon McMullar published in November 2000 (2) Paperback edited by Jay L. Halio published in September 2000 (3) Paperback edited by R. A. Foakes published in February 1998

Their editorial reviews describe ALL 3 of these editions as "This is the first fully annotated modern-spelling edition of King Henry VIII to appear for over a decade and includes up-to-date scholarship on all aspects of the play, including dating authorship, printing, sources and stage history." I don't think so! The reader reviews don't distinguish the editions but they are the same reviews posted for the different books. I wish I could contribute the answer but I am still trying to figure it out -- in the meantime, purchase cautiously or you may be disappointed.

Shakespeare managed to describe the later life of King Henry the eight, with much intelligence and gracefulness. This play, written centuries before, has captured my attention unlike any present-day play or novel. King Henry VIII was based on the life of the notoriously known King Henry the eight of England. To my dismay, only two of King Henry's wives were mentioned. This play showed how King Henry's life was never truly complete: he couldn't trust anyone, he was unfaithful to the Lord, his wives and his country, and he was never blessed with a son, to be heir to his throne. For myself, the climax of the play was viewing how the king dealt with the change of wives and the birth of his daughter, Elizabeth. The play King Henry VIII by William Shakespeare is a wonderful recommendation for anyone who wishes to understand the tidings of King Henry the eight from a fictitious, historical, personal point of view, rather than from historical facts.

This was an appropriate conclusion to Shakespeare's career. Not only are the characters such as Henry VIII, Cranmer, and Wolsey convincing, but the poetry and images are beautiful. In addition, through the fall of several characters such as Wolsey, we can see reflections of Shakespeare himself as he wrote his 37th and final play. It is also poetically appropriate that one of the greatest writers England ever knew ended his career by writing a play about one of the greatest kings that England ever knew! I DO NOT believe that Shakespeare only wrote parts of this play as many people do. With the beautiful images, poetry, and captivating characters, I am very confident in the belief that this play was written entirely by the one and only William Shakespeare.

One of Shakespeare's earlier comedies, "Love's Labour's Lost" does not even hold a candle to some of the Bard's greatest comedic works (A Midsummer Night's Dream, The Tempest, The Winter's Tale). Yet, for all its lack of blazing greatness, the play is indeed a joyful diversion.

The plot is that of a philosopher's paradise being invaded by the most nefarious of things...love.

Shakespeare means many things when he speaks of love: often it can be shallow, bawdy lecherous love, sometimes it is an almost Petrachan yearning "courtly" love, once in a while it is a self destructive, clasping, obsessive love. Here it is pretty much straight-up attraction of the "hey, I'd like to marry you" variety.

As the noble, well-meaning but unable to restrain themselves philosopher's fall for the beauties of this tale, many awkward situations occur. Much of the humor here is of this vein. Plays on words and outrageous situations provide most of the laughs.

For fans of Shakespeare, I wholeheartedly endorse this great play. For beginners, I recommend starting with one of the plays mentioned above.

Be forewarned. Even if you have read a lot of Shakespeare's plays, this one is difficult and demands much effort to follow. But, if you can push yourself into reading this, it is well worth the time. Shakespeare himself performed the role of Berowne. While this is a comedy, the humour relies on irony as opposed to funny events. Also, unlike his other comedies, this one does not end in utter happieness. The interaction of the characters, as well as the situation comedy (especially in 4.3) is quite memorable. This comedy differs significantly from most of his others, but it is a wonderful piece of literature.

I really love W.B. Spencer's work -- I first found RESUME WITH MONSTERS, then ZOD WALLOP, then RETURN OF COUNT ELECTRIC, and IRRATIONAL FEARS is waiting to be read. MAYBE I'LL CALL ANNA is an interesting story from his early career and good in its own right. Definately a worthwhile read.

I have read all of Spencer's other books except for Irrational fears. "Maybe I'll Call Anna" was as fantastic as the others. It doesn't have any fantasy/horror elements like "Zod Wallop" or "Resume With Monsters" but it has genuine characters that come to life just like the other books and a killer plot that wont let you put the book down. If you like his other works read this one.

The book had a very nice dicription of the bassoon. The different kinds and about taking care of it and your reeds. The only problem I had with it is that the fingering chart was confusing. Overall I think it was good.

Like most of Shakespeare's comidies, LLL involved a couple of very independent women falling in love with a couple of guys who were in love with them too. It also brought mistaken identities into play and, like A Midsummer Night's Dream, it had a play within the play. The humor was mostly in the form of puns, most of which were hard to understand the first time through. The ending was really bad, though, because the girls didn't get together with the guys like they should have if Shakespeare had planned a happy ending. All-in-all, I would only recommend this play for really serious Shakespearean scholars, as it is almost too dense for us laypeople

this is witty play about four guys who vow to sequester themselves for three years in serious study, but who are forced to forswear their vows when four attractive women show up and upset their plans. the humor is mainly in the form of wordplay, as only shakespeare can do, and the verbal jousting between berowne and his lady is especially entertaining, and anticipates the tete-a-tetes between petruchio and katherina in "taming of a shrew" and benedick and beatrice in "much ado about nothing". definitely worth a read, and if you can get it, the bbc television production of LLL is also worth seeing. last of all, i disagree with the other poster who complained of the ending. i thought it was pretty clear that the couples would get together in a year's time. so the ending was implicitly happy. only someone who is accustomed to instant gratification could find fault with it.

From these short stories I got the feeling that William Spencer is good game for taking the place of Ira Levin in popular fiction: Great premises, underdeveloped plot and characters, and plain jane prose.

The man CAN write, I'll admit to that. He drops ingenuous metaphors and literary references. But the stories hardly feel as a whole, just some witty tidbits tied together in a bundle.

Frankly, Spencer sets the trap for himself with his introuction, where he analyzes the state of short fiction as a playground for writers, where stories are used as prose exercises of preciousist writing, with little fun in the tale to tell. He admits by the end that some of his own stories can be held for having the same (un)qualities... but it seems they had a lot more of it than he expected.

So, this is my scorecard:

"The Entomologists at Obala" is, arguably, the most enjoyable of this stories. A minimalist reworking of Romeo and Juliet, with young lovers fighing through family feuds over exotic insect and aracnid species.

"Looking out for Eleanor" is a psychological suspense story, and the lenghtiest story in the book. That may be key to its success, for it allows the characters to develop their traits and the plot to move at a pleasurable pace.

Spencer adds three literary exercises in character description through metaphor: "The Wedding Photographer in Crisis", "Pep Talk" and "Snow". They may need to be read more than once to sink in, because they somehow feel flat.

There are also three tales I could envision featured in "Alfred Hitchcock Presents", exercises in twist ending: "Haunted by the Horror King", "The Return of Count Electric" and "Best Man". Sadly, by the time the twist came I was expecting it, and failed to shock me.

Lastly, there are "Graven Images", "A Child's Christmas in Florida" and "Daughter Doom", tales where several elements are left intentionally obscure, and which I found to be the most disappointing from the whole lot.

As I said, Spencer can write, and this book may keep you entertained as you read it. But you shouldn't be surprised if, like me, you finish it feeling nothing really happend while you were at it.

This guy is really funny and dark at the same time. His style flows and is really easy to read. I don't usually like stuff that's this 'normal' but I plan on reading everything this guy has. By normal I don't mean boring I mean there were no 'fantastic' elements in it like magic or monsters, just people and situations. I thought almost all the stories were very original but the last two were definitely the worst. I think I will like his novels even more than his short stories.

Many people would like to say that Shakespeare did not write this play. But this is hardly fair. Even with the world's finest writers such as Marlowe and Dickens, not every single thing they write can be a masterpiece. But what makes "The Two Gentleman of Verona" worth reading? Well, Shakespeare presents us with a valid theme. (Conflicts often exist between romance and friendship.) There is also beautiful language. Launce and his dog offer some interesting comedy as well as a beautiful and memorable passage in 2.3. The scene where Valentine is accepted amonst the outlaws is memorable. This is Shakespeare's first play where a woman (Julia) disuises herself as man to do some investigating. It is also easy to see that several elements of this play were used in "Romeo and Juliet." To be sure, this is not a masterpiece like "The Comedy of Errors," "Richard III," or "King Lear." But it is still an good study that is worth some interest.

Although few would claim that Two Gentlemen of Verona is one of Shakespeare's greatest plays, it is well worth reading in order to serve as a reference for the best of his romantic comedies. In essence, Two Gentlemen of Verona gives you a measuring stick to see the brilliance in the best works.

The play has the first of Shakespeare's many brave, resourceful and cross-dressing heroines, Julia.

Shakespeare always used his fools and clowns well to make serious statements about life and love, and to expose the folly of the nobles. Two Gentlemen of Verona has two very fine comic scenes featuring Launce. In one, he lists the qualities of a milk maid he has fallen in love with and helps us to see that love is blind and relative. In another, he describes the difficulties he has delivering a pet dog to Silvia on his master, Proteus', behalf in a way that will keep you merry on many a cold winter's evening.

The story also has one of the fastest plot resolutions you will ever find in a play. Blink, and the play is over. This nifty sleight of hand is Shakespeare's way of showing that when you get noble emotions and character flowing together, things go smoothly and naturally.

The overall theme of the play develops around the relative conflicts that lust, love, friendship, and forgiveness can create and overcome. Proteus is a man who seems literally crazed by his attraction to Silvia so that he loses all of his finer qualities. Yet even he can be redeemed, after almost doing a most foul act. The play is very optimistic in that way.

I particularly enjoy the plot device of having Proteus and Julia (pretending to be a page) playing in the roles of false suitors for others to serve their own interests. Fans of Othello will enjoy these foreshadowings of Iago.

The words themselves can be a bit bare at times, requiring good direction and acting to bring out the full conflict and story. For that reason, I strongly urge you to see the play performed first. If that is not possible, do listen to an audio recording as you read along. That will help round out the full atmosphere that Shakespeare was developing here.

After you finish Two Gentlemen of Verona, think about where you would honor friendship above love, where equal to love, and where below love. Is friendship less important than love? Or is friendship merely less intense? Can you experience both with the same person?

Enjoy close ties of mutual commitment . . . with all those you feel close to!

"The Two Gentlemen of Verona" is one of my favorite Shakespeare plays. Maybe that's because it's one of the only one's I understand. My youth Theatre did a wonderful production of this play. I was not in it, but I saw it twice. It was set in the 60's, peasant-shirted and bell-bottomed. I think it's a wonderful story, although a bit unrealistic because of all the forgiveness that happens at the end of the play. But I think that it's a play everyone should read. This edition of the play is, I think, a very good one. If you are planning to buy a copy of "The Two Gentlemen of Verona," I would advise you to buy the most current edidtion printed by the Folger Shakespeare Library. They have lots of information in the book, and many definitions of the more difficult Elizabethian words.

My only complaint about this play is that Shakespeare should have had some dialogues where the characters discussed crucial history before the play opens. Gloucester (murdered or dead before the play but mentioned several times) had tried to usurp Richard's crown too many times. History itself is not sure if Gloucester died or was murdered. Bolingbroke for a while conspired with Gloucester and now sees another oppurtunity to usurp the crown.The virtuous John of Gaunt served Richard with honor and integrity and eventually moved parliament into arresting Gloucester for treason. This would of made John of Gaunt's rages all the more valid. Otherwise this play is outstanding! Richard shows himself to be capable of ruling at times, but gains our contempt when he seizes his the honorable John of Gaunt's wealth. John of Gaunt's final rage in 2.1 is a passage of immense rageful beauty. Also, Shakespeare moves us into strongly suspecting that Richard had Gloucester murdered. However, despite Richard's crime, Shakespeare masterfully reverses our feelings and moves us into having deep pity for Richard when he is deposed. The Bishop of Carlisle (Richard's true friend) provides some powerful passages of his own. I can not overestimate the grace in which Shakespeare increases our new won pity for Richard when Bolingbroke (Gaunt's rightful heir) regains his wealth and the death of Gloucester is left ambiguous. 5.1, when Richard sadly leaves his queen and can see that Henry IV and his followers will eventually divide is a scene of sorrowful beauty. 5.4 is chilling when Exton plots Richard's murder. 5.5 is chilling and captivating when Richard dies but manages to take two of the thugs down with him. The icing on the cake is that Bolingbroke (Henry IV) can only regret his actions and realize that he has gotten himself into a troublesome situation. But that will be covered in "1 Henry IV" and "2 Henry IV." We can easily argue that it is in "Richard II" where we see Shakespeare's mastery of the language at its finest.

Richard II was incompetent, wastefully extravagant, overtaxed his nobles and peasants, ignored his senior advisors, and lavished dukedoms on his favorites. His rival, Henry of Bolingbroke (later Henry IV), was popular with the common man and undeservingly suffered banishment and loss of all his property. And yet two centuries later Elizabethans viewed the overthrow of Richard II as fundamentally wrong and ultimately responsible for 100 years of crisis and civil war. Queen Elizabeth's government even censored Shakespeare's play.

Shakespeare masterfully manipulates our feelings and attitude toward Richard II and Bolingbroke. We initially watch Richard II try to reconcile differences between two apparently loyal subjects each challenging the other's loyalty to the king. He seemingly reluctantly approves a trial by combat. But a month later, only minutes before combat begins, he banishes both form England. We begin to question Richard's motivation.

Richard's subsequent behavior, especially his illegal seizure of Bolingbroke's land and title, persuades us that his overthrow is justified. But as King Richard's position declines, a more kingly, more contemplative ruler emerges. He faces overthrow and eventual death with dignity and courage. Meanwhile we see Bolingbroke, now Henry IV, beset with unease, uncertainty, and eventually guilt for his action.

Shakespeare also leaves us in in a state of uncertainty. What is the role of a subject? What are the limits of passive obedience? How do we reconcile the overthrow of an incompetent ruler with the divine right of kings? Will Henry IV, his children, or England itself suffer retribution?

Richard II has elements of a tragedy, but is fundamentally a historical play. I was late coming to Shakespeare's English histories and despite my familiarity with many of his works I found myself somewhat disoriented. I did not appreciate the complex relationships between the aristocratic families, nor what had happened before. Fortunately I was rescued by Peter Saccio, the author of "Shakespeare's English Kings". Saccio's delightful book explores how Shakespeare's imagination and actual history are intertwined.

I hope you enjoy Richard II as much as I have. It is the gateway to Henry IV (Parts 1 and 2) and Henry V, all exceptional plays.

The thing with Shakespeare histories is that almost no one reads them, as opposed to his tragedies and comedies. I don't know why that is. The histories that are read are either Henry V (largely due to Branagh's movie), Richard III (because the hunchback king is so over-the-top evil), or the gargantuan trilogy of Henry VI, with the nearly saintly king (at least by Part III) who much prefers contemplating religion and ethics to ruling and dealing with the cabals among his nobles.

So why read a relatively obscure history about a relatively obscure king? Aside from the obvious (it's Shakespeare, stupid), it is a wonderful piece of writing - intense, lyrical, and subtle. Richard II is morally ambiguous, initially an arrogant, callous figure who heeds no warnings against his behavior. Of course, his behavior, which includes seizing the property of nobles without regard for their heirs, leads to his downfall. Nothing in his character or behavior inspires his subjects so he has no passionate defenders when one of the wronged heirs leads a rebellion to depose Richard II. But Richard now becomes a much more sympathetic figure -especially in the scene where he confronts the usurper, Richard acknowledges his mistakes, but eloquently wonders what happens when the wronged subjects can depose the leader when they are wronged. What then of the monarchy, what then of England?

On top of the profound political musings, you get some extraordinarily lyrical Shakespeare (and that is truly extraordinary). Most well known may be the description of England that was used in the airline commercial a few years back... "This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, ..."

If you like Shakespeare and haven't read this play, you've missed a gem.