hee.
Bit of literary criticism (from an article I'm reading on historiography in Richard II, surprise surprise) that will amuse the histories geeks on my flist:
No one knows the extent of Shakespeare's sources for Richard II, nor what he thought of them. But literary critics, like historians, are Plantagenets or Lancastrians: they will take sides.
*enables slapfighting in comments*
(It's not a bad article, except that it anticipates some stuff I came up with independently, so now I have to cite it and will look less cool, and also it disses one of my favorite critics at one point. Feh.)
No one knows the extent of Shakespeare's sources for Richard II, nor what he thought of them. But literary critics, like historians, are Plantagenets or Lancastrians: they will take sides.
*enables slapfighting in comments*
(It's not a bad article, except that it anticipates some stuff I came up with independently, so now I have to cite it and will look less cool, and also it disses one of my favorite critics at one point. Feh.)