Academic geekery
THIS is why I'm writing a dissertation on literary afterlives of historical figures. Because people think it's interesting! Because it provokes arguments! Because angevin2 occasionally makes awesome fingerpuppet videos involving said literary afterlives of historical figures.
(And because I'm a huge nerd. But moving on...)
This whole thing began after several people (myself among them) made joking comments about Shakespeare's Richard III being a Tudor hackjob. For me, it was joking. I don't know about anyone else. She then posted a very clear and interesting response that points out the flaws in the 'hackjob' theory, linked above. Personally, I'd love to see junediamanti and a_t_rain's thoughts on the subject.
I will admit that for some years I was a dyed-in-the-wool revisionist. I liked Nice Richard. Did I think he was a saint? Not really, but I was more or less convinced he hadn't murdered the princes if only because it was a heinously stupid thing to do. Of course, there's no evidence for his intelligence or lack thereof -- in fact, the evidence is more or less minimal on the whole -- but it really just seemed to me to be a terribly irrational crime.
Currently, I have no real opinion on the princes. I have accepted that it is a murder that will probably never be solved to everyone's satisfaction. What I'm more interested in is the afterlife, metaphorically speaking, of their oh-so-wicked uncle.
Shakespeare was an entertainer, first and foremost. He wrote plays for an audience, and the history plays in particular were merely falling in with an older tradition of historical poetry and chronicles, etc. Of course, he was also writing for an audience ruled by a Queen who was growing older and had no heirs. So, what better subject than The Awful Things That Happen When The Succession Is Threatened. The events of 1483-85 make wonderful dramatic fodder, as evidenced by the brilliance of Shakespeare's Richard III. Is it the truth? Probably not. Although the more important question is: Who cares?
We will never know the truth. Or at least I think the chances are slim to none. I love that it's spawned debate. I love that it has produced all kinds of pieces of literature, even if some are absolutely awful. What annoys me to no end is when historians (::coughAlisonWeircough::) regurgitate previous arguments and claim that within this book is contained The Truth. Weir in particular makes my hackles rise because she refuses to admit to the existence of *any* other points of view. The best biographies/histories I've found are the ones that take into account all the evidence, however scanty, regardless of whose side they come out on. They don't ignore things that don't suit their viewpoint.
As to what I think of Richard III? I don't think he was a saint. Nor do I think he was evil incarnate. I think he was a man, no better and no worse than the ones that preceded and followed him. He was fighting for power under very unfavourable circumstances, and in general, he seems to have had a rather awful run of bad luck. Whether that was his own fault is not for me to answer. One of my favourite books happens to involve a revisionist Richard, but Shakespeare's Richard III is easily one of my favourite plays. So I like to think I can see the merits of both sides, though I will admit I lean a bit more toward the revisionist end. Old habits die hard, after all.
In other news, note to self re: Oxford weather -- It doesn't matter how warm it is in the morning. Nor does it matter that you're planning to spend several hours in a library. It's the middle of October. Wear a coat. Because Murphy's Law demands that the day you leave the house wearing a sleeveless top is the day you return to the house in very cold rain.
At least I've started keeping the umbrella with me at all times.
(And because I'm a huge nerd. But moving on...)
This whole thing began after several people (myself among them) made joking comments about Shakespeare's Richard III being a Tudor hackjob. For me, it was joking. I don't know about anyone else. She then posted a very clear and interesting response that points out the flaws in the 'hackjob' theory, linked above. Personally, I'd love to see junediamanti and a_t_rain's thoughts on the subject.
I will admit that for some years I was a dyed-in-the-wool revisionist. I liked Nice Richard. Did I think he was a saint? Not really, but I was more or less convinced he hadn't murdered the princes if only because it was a heinously stupid thing to do. Of course, there's no evidence for his intelligence or lack thereof -- in fact, the evidence is more or less minimal on the whole -- but it really just seemed to me to be a terribly irrational crime.
Currently, I have no real opinion on the princes. I have accepted that it is a murder that will probably never be solved to everyone's satisfaction. What I'm more interested in is the afterlife, metaphorically speaking, of their oh-so-wicked uncle.
Shakespeare was an entertainer, first and foremost. He wrote plays for an audience, and the history plays in particular were merely falling in with an older tradition of historical poetry and chronicles, etc. Of course, he was also writing for an audience ruled by a Queen who was growing older and had no heirs. So, what better subject than The Awful Things That Happen When The Succession Is Threatened. The events of 1483-85 make wonderful dramatic fodder, as evidenced by the brilliance of Shakespeare's Richard III. Is it the truth? Probably not. Although the more important question is: Who cares?
We will never know the truth. Or at least I think the chances are slim to none. I love that it's spawned debate. I love that it has produced all kinds of pieces of literature, even if some are absolutely awful. What annoys me to no end is when historians (::coughAlisonWeircough::) regurgitate previous arguments and claim that within this book is contained The Truth. Weir in particular makes my hackles rise because she refuses to admit to the existence of *any* other points of view. The best biographies/histories I've found are the ones that take into account all the evidence, however scanty, regardless of whose side they come out on. They don't ignore things that don't suit their viewpoint.
As to what I think of Richard III? I don't think he was a saint. Nor do I think he was evil incarnate. I think he was a man, no better and no worse than the ones that preceded and followed him. He was fighting for power under very unfavourable circumstances, and in general, he seems to have had a rather awful run of bad luck. Whether that was his own fault is not for me to answer. One of my favourite books happens to involve a revisionist Richard, but Shakespeare's Richard III is easily one of my favourite plays. So I like to think I can see the merits of both sides, though I will admit I lean a bit more toward the revisionist end. Old habits die hard, after all.
In other news, note to self re: Oxford weather -- It doesn't matter how warm it is in the morning. Nor does it matter that you're planning to spend several hours in a library. It's the middle of October. Wear a coat. Because Murphy's Law demands that the day you leave the house wearing a sleeveless top is the day you return to the house in very cold rain.
At least I've started keeping the umbrella with me at all times.