(no subject)
The questions meme from 
gehayi:
1) What do you like best about the Star Trek reboot? What do you like least?
Best... I think just that I see it as a big, filmed AU fanfic, which leaves lots of potential for fun. Also that for once, the brash annoying guy does NOT get the girl because he's so darn persistent - she already made a different choice, thank you very much, and is not at all conflicted or interested in a dramatic triangle. (Actually he didn't get any girl, and really flubbed his other attempt at romance, which I also thought was a nice touch. Either AOS!Kirk is just not as smooth, or he's still younger and less clueful than he will be someday; either makes me glad they didn't just mindlessly replicate "Kirk gets all the girls.") And I found it very interesting that with all of the father/captain parallels going on, in the end it was Spock, not James Kirk, who was the most direct parallel to George Kirk (what with flying his ship on a suicide ramming mission and all). James isn't a clone of George, how novel for a schlocky movie! I like the concept of Spock/Uhura, especially since supposedly they wanted to do it for the original show in seasons 4 and 5 but it got cancelled and there were still probably too many racist studio execs and audience members to make it last. But they had some nice moments anyway (singing in Charlie X about how he's a ladykiller? and he sorta-smiles and plays along? and Nichols originally thought she was auditioning for Spock and played her character as a sort of counterpart? awesome!) Finally, even though he was only around for a minute, I loved Robau. The actor was great - after Nero made his offer they couldn't refuse, you could see Robau being both very good at trying to stay calm and make plans to save the crew and also going OH SHIT OH SHIT I'M GOING TO DIE. A Pakistani captain with a French name also seems like good Trek tradition of showing all the Earth nations being friends in the future, which they needed to do since Chekov doesn't have that same impact now that the Cold War is over.
Worst: well, there's a lot here too. I hated that Winona wasn't at Kirk's ceremony at the end. Did she just fly off when he was 12 and never come back or what? Not that the writers probably even thought about it, because she's just a mom. *headdesk* I hated that even though she raised him, he doesn't ever give any indications that she influenced him (couldn't they at least drop in one offhand "my mom told me..." remark somewhere?). I was sad they cut the scene where Amanda gets mad at Sarek after Spock's school fight, especially since the director said something ridiculous about how her death had more impact if we saw her less - no, no it doesn't, character development is still a good thing. I didn't like her fridging, though since the whole thing is basically fanfic to me I have fixed it in my head, as I think I mentioned before. (Mysterious ancient energy beings fix everything in Star Trek! And plenty of people un-die!) I think losing his planet should have been sufficient for angst, and there's no reason his dad still couldn't have decided he needed to reassure Spock that emotions were okay sometimes. And must Nero have had a dead wife too? (I know, Khan did, and the movie rips off a lot of that one...) Couldn't it be a brother or something instead for once?
I also dislike that there's just no time to properly develop anything - I would have liked to see Uhura actually translate something the UT wasn't familiar with yet at a critical moment, or her and Spock discussing some obscure point of linguistics before a plot moment intervenes (so we can see their intellectual compatibility more), or Gaila doing some awesome computer re-routing thingy after Nero's attacks destroyed some important console (I'm just going to assume she was on board), or Winona showing up after they get back to Earth and Jim having a moment where he realizes he really learned more about captaining and not giving up from her (she must have done a lot of not-giving-up to be going back into space at all after what happened, as we know she did by Frank's comment). I would have liked to see more of Chekov and Sulu, and to have gotten to know Kal Penn's character (he's on the background on the bridge) and that pilot who substitutes for Sulu. And a whole bunch of other stuff you just can't do in a 2-hour movie. (I won't complain too much about all the characters getting major posts on the flagship ridiculously young, because I have a semi-fix worked out for that too.) And I think it would have been an interesting shake-up if Spock ended up captain with Kirk as first officer, but then I suppose Spock wouldn't get to do as much science, so I tell myself that like Mirrorverse!Spock, he'd rather have the science than command (and will still be in a position to command a lot anyway, and babysit Kirk).
2) I notice that you seem to be into certain periods of history--ancient history, the Heian period, the Edo period, the Qing dynasty, and so on. Why those particular periods? (Above and beyond the fact that history is your field of study.)
Partly because I'm just more familiar with some of them, having gotten to study them in more depth, but other reasons too. The Heian Period just needs more love - it always gets overlooked in popular culture because it has poets and courtiers instead of samurai. But it's cool! One of those poet-courtiers even ended up as the kami of school examinations, which is a pretty neat fate. Plus, there are lady novelists, fascinating attempts at creating a major metropolis and massive civil service in a place with little to no history of them, and tension and fusion between "high" imported Chinese culture and "low" native Japanese culture. (There is one books series I know of set in this period, the Sugawara Akitada mysteries. The character is supposedly a grandson of that courtier-turned-kami.) The Qing Dynasty is an interesting example of the techniques foreign rulers can use to try to make themselves acceptable to their subjects (no, no, court officials, we aren't calling you back to kill you all - we want to know how to bury the old emperor properly, and you know the rites!) while still maintaining control (mandatory new hairstyle, everyone!). Plus it was a transitional, stressful period kind of like what happened in Europe around the time of enclosure, with the economy grinding toward a new form (iirc they had a sort of putting-out system in China too), and there were interesting events like the sorcery scare of 1768 (connected to the tensions over the foreign rulers and their imposed hairstyle, the economic stresses, and a bunch of other things), and some fascinating and very long-reigning emperors.
Now I want to go and study more, because this reminds me how much more neat history I don't know, or don't know well enough.
3) What is "James Bond exposition"?
From the Jabootu glossary: "James Bond Exposition Rule (n): Film convention that dictates that a supervillain isn’t allowed to kill the hero until he has meticulously revealed his master plan, including vital data regarding time elements and such. Traditionally, this takes so much time that the Villain must leave before personally seeing to it that the hero is taken care of. Inevitably, his goofball assistants then mess up the job, allowing to hero to exploit his newly gained knowledge and disrupt the villain’s plan."
4) Assume that Binns has gone on to wherever ghosts go and the Sorting Hat is now the History of Magic teacher. As you said, it's been around for a thousand years or more. What will it focus on--besides, as you said, the Founders?
Oh, lots of things! It probably knows more about events from before its time than recent people just by virtue of having heard from people closer to the events, so it probably knows what the deal was with Merlin et al. What were the relationships between wizards and Muggles then, and how differentiated were they even? How were magic-users treated under Celts, Saxons, Normans... The Hat probably knows a lot about the Normans, and the Vikings for that matter (maybe one of those groups was the "external deadly foes" it mentioned). It would trace the move toward seclusion, from the early days of... whatever was going on in ancient times... to the founding of Hogwarts in a secluded location, through the witch-hunts of later centuries, into early modern times up to 1689/92. What forces were behind this? Were there Muggles in Hogsmeade in early days, the relatives of witches and wizards? How did the "court wizards" relate to Muggles, to other wizards? Were they seen as traitors, or lucky guys to get cushy jobs, or spies in the enemy camp? How did mainstream Muggle events affect wizards (for instance, what about Jodel's theory about the Quill being created in the 19th century after Muggle-born magical kids being pushed into factory work made magical outbreaks more obvious and thus more dangerous to wizarding secrecy)? How well did seclusion even work at first - or now, for that matter? How did it change conceptions of who was or wasn't pureblooded (they apparently had that concept already, unless the Black tapestry is a massive retcon - possible)?
And like Binns, it'd probably talk a lot about goblin rebellions of the 17th century - but it'd be interesting enough that the kids would pay attention. How did they get from there to the goblins controlling the banks? And what does the goblin concept of ownership mean with regards to all their currency, then? (It'd probably mention exactly what that contract between Godric and the goblins entailed, too.) What have the effects of admitting Muggleborn students been? What have gender politics been like in the ww for the last 1000 years? How did the Wizengamot and Ministry develop, and how did their powers change over time? How does the wizarding economy work? Which Muggle inventions has it adapted?
Crucially, it would also talk about the 20th century. Grindlewald, for instance. And the pureblood supremacist movement. And the suspicious events while Tom Riddle attended, and why they were never tied to him, what happened to him, and how he was able to convince so many purebloods and a halfblood or two that he had the right ideas, with discussion of Hogwarts school culture and the reign of Albus Dumbledore, Headmaster, Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot, Supreme Mugwump of the International Confederation of Wizards, and my isn't that a lot of titles to be holding at once? The Hat will not come out and call him a bad guy or assign Rita's book, but will teach students to think critically about leaders' decisions. The Hat also knows quite a lot about the career of Severus Snape (it was in the office for a lot of crucial conversations, and could always ask the portraits about anything it missed), and students will have debates and write papers arguing issues like Snape's true loyalties (maybe he wanted them both dead for [insert speculative reasons here, with or without Lily] and played them against each other, one student might argue), whether Dumbledore was an effective leader, what a leader's responsibilities are toward his agents, and which actions it is acceptable for a secret agent to take to maintain his cover.
There would be more coverage of the wizarding world outside Britain.
Also, speaking of the portraits of previous headmasters, they'll get to guest lecture.
...I could go on, but that's probably good for now.
5) If you had a daemon, what kind of animal/bird/reptile/etc. would it be and why?
One of my high school classmates once said I'd be a Jesus lizard, but I have no idea why, so I'm going to go with "cat." They're good at entertaining themselves and would often like to be alone, but then suddenly really want to come snuggle with you by the fire, and I identify with that. Plus, they're very clever, but also spend a lot of their time just hanging out or sleeping, which is probably what I'd do if I could.
6) What do you like best about Nnedi Okorafor's writing?
The refreshingly non-cliche settings. No Ye Olde McEurope in sight! Her fantasy parallel world Ginen is very jungle-y and I think everyone there is black, and they have developed biologically-based technologies - you grow your computer from a CPU seed, and even e-readers have very hard leaves for covers. The future!Nigeria in The Shadow Speaker is also great (someone dropped magic bombs a few decades ago, and now lakes appear and disappear at random, camels can talk, and sandstorms want to kill you). But I also love Ejii from The Shadow Speaker, who is one of the few pacifist characters I've run into (who doesn't decide killing is the best way after all). She's got a lot of baggage, what with her father having been a petty tyrant who instituted mandatory veiling and other restrictions before getting his head publicly chopped off by the Red Queen Jaa, who was not happy about his laws. But she tries to do what she thinks is right even when she's terrified. And I loved the scene where she runs into one of those killer sandstorms, and knowing they're probably doomed anyway, she decides she might as well talk to the sandstorm and find out what it wants. (Incidentally, one of Jaa's two husbands used to be a sandstorm. The three of them are very happy together and their in-laws seem happy too.)
7) I notice that you have Richard III as an interest. What is your opinion about the man?
I think he seemed like a decent enough ruler for the time. Protecting prisoners' goods from being seized until after conviction? Nice law to have. He also pardoned a surprising number of people who betrayed him, like the flip-flopping Stanleys, so he doesn't seem to have been especially vindictive. Or maybe it was a cunning plan (which backfired, at least with the Stanleys), but either way, he wasn't keen on killing or even imprisoning everyone he probably legally could have. He was reputedly an accomplished warrior, so he also probably wasn't too squeamish, though, when it came down to it. (And even though he protested strongly against it, as warden of the tower, he probably eventually had to let Edward's people in to kill George. So, shares responsibility for his brother's death. Not great, even though his brother was a traitor.) That no one, friend or foe, disputes his warrior reputation seems a pretty clear indication that he had two good arms and probably no hunchback, and that casts doubt on anything anyone in or just after his time says about him if they also claim those features. So, while he might not have been what we would recognize as a nice, modern guy, I think he got a bad rap overall.
As for the princes... well, first, given that we know Edward contracted a secret marriage with Elizabeth, is it so improbably that he had earlier contracted a different secret marriage with Eleanor Butler? Which doesn't mean he did, just that it isn't an outrageous claim. And if Richard believed it, it isn't all that outrageous - given how seriously they took bastardy - that he would feel obligated to take action, because if he tried to cover it up and someone else found out, that could be a major problem. Which isn't to say he might not have been relieved for an excuse to take the throne himself, especially given the dangers of a minor king surrounded by advisers who don't like Richard. Plus, king! Isn't that what most people in his position would want? But conscience and ambition might have dovetailed nicely.
Then... well, there isn't nearly enough evidence to convict him of the princes' murders, or even to prove that there were murders, or that they happened while he was alive. And he left their sisters and plenty of other claimants alive, which doesn't seem too smart if he were really trying to kill his way to the throne. But then not everyone is smart all the time, so he could have just bungled it. On the other other hand, Henry acted very strangely for someone who supposedly thought Richard had offed his nephews - not even mentioning it for 20 years, once most witnesses were safely dead? And the one witness he did get confessed probably under torture after joining a rebellion and was beheaded shortly after? Fishy. Well, maybe he just didn't know for sure and didn't want to say something in public that could be proven wrong... but there are also just too many other people who could have done it (Buckingham, Henry, Henry's mom...) for me to say Richard's definitely guilty. He might be, and killing your nephews is a horrible thing, but then Henry VII and his descendents did plenty of horrible things too (in Ireland, for instance) and they don't get cast as villains. No, they're "capable administrators." Even when they have their wives' heads chopped off. I think either they ought to be considered villiains, or Richard ought to get more of a pass ("making tough decisions in a tough time! man of his time") like they do. Or something in between - give them more credit for their crimes, and him more credit for the decent things he did.
If anyone wants questions, let me know.
gehayi:
1) What do you like best about the Star Trek reboot? What do you like least?
Best... I think just that I see it as a big, filmed AU fanfic, which leaves lots of potential for fun. Also that for once, the brash annoying guy does NOT get the girl because he's so darn persistent - she already made a different choice, thank you very much, and is not at all conflicted or interested in a dramatic triangle. (Actually he didn't get any girl, and really flubbed his other attempt at romance, which I also thought was a nice touch. Either AOS!Kirk is just not as smooth, or he's still younger and less clueful than he will be someday; either makes me glad they didn't just mindlessly replicate "Kirk gets all the girls.") And I found it very interesting that with all of the father/captain parallels going on, in the end it was Spock, not James Kirk, who was the most direct parallel to George Kirk (what with flying his ship on a suicide ramming mission and all). James isn't a clone of George, how novel for a schlocky movie! I like the concept of Spock/Uhura, especially since supposedly they wanted to do it for the original show in seasons 4 and 5 but it got cancelled and there were still probably too many racist studio execs and audience members to make it last. But they had some nice moments anyway (singing in Charlie X about how he's a ladykiller? and he sorta-smiles and plays along? and Nichols originally thought she was auditioning for Spock and played her character as a sort of counterpart? awesome!) Finally, even though he was only around for a minute, I loved Robau. The actor was great - after Nero made his offer they couldn't refuse, you could see Robau being both very good at trying to stay calm and make plans to save the crew and also going OH SHIT OH SHIT I'M GOING TO DIE. A Pakistani captain with a French name also seems like good Trek tradition of showing all the Earth nations being friends in the future, which they needed to do since Chekov doesn't have that same impact now that the Cold War is over.
Worst: well, there's a lot here too. I hated that Winona wasn't at Kirk's ceremony at the end. Did she just fly off when he was 12 and never come back or what? Not that the writers probably even thought about it, because she's just a mom. *headdesk* I hated that even though she raised him, he doesn't ever give any indications that she influenced him (couldn't they at least drop in one offhand "my mom told me..." remark somewhere?). I was sad they cut the scene where Amanda gets mad at Sarek after Spock's school fight, especially since the director said something ridiculous about how her death had more impact if we saw her less - no, no it doesn't, character development is still a good thing. I didn't like her fridging, though since the whole thing is basically fanfic to me I have fixed it in my head, as I think I mentioned before. (Mysterious ancient energy beings fix everything in Star Trek! And plenty of people un-die!) I think losing his planet should have been sufficient for angst, and there's no reason his dad still couldn't have decided he needed to reassure Spock that emotions were okay sometimes. And must Nero have had a dead wife too? (I know, Khan did, and the movie rips off a lot of that one...) Couldn't it be a brother or something instead for once?
I also dislike that there's just no time to properly develop anything - I would have liked to see Uhura actually translate something the UT wasn't familiar with yet at a critical moment, or her and Spock discussing some obscure point of linguistics before a plot moment intervenes (so we can see their intellectual compatibility more), or Gaila doing some awesome computer re-routing thingy after Nero's attacks destroyed some important console (I'm just going to assume she was on board), or Winona showing up after they get back to Earth and Jim having a moment where he realizes he really learned more about captaining and not giving up from her (she must have done a lot of not-giving-up to be going back into space at all after what happened, as we know she did by Frank's comment). I would have liked to see more of Chekov and Sulu, and to have gotten to know Kal Penn's character (he's on the background on the bridge) and that pilot who substitutes for Sulu. And a whole bunch of other stuff you just can't do in a 2-hour movie. (I won't complain too much about all the characters getting major posts on the flagship ridiculously young, because I have a semi-fix worked out for that too.) And I think it would have been an interesting shake-up if Spock ended up captain with Kirk as first officer, but then I suppose Spock wouldn't get to do as much science, so I tell myself that like Mirrorverse!Spock, he'd rather have the science than command (and will still be in a position to command a lot anyway, and babysit Kirk).
2) I notice that you seem to be into certain periods of history--ancient history, the Heian period, the Edo period, the Qing dynasty, and so on. Why those particular periods? (Above and beyond the fact that history is your field of study.)
Partly because I'm just more familiar with some of them, having gotten to study them in more depth, but other reasons too. The Heian Period just needs more love - it always gets overlooked in popular culture because it has poets and courtiers instead of samurai. But it's cool! One of those poet-courtiers even ended up as the kami of school examinations, which is a pretty neat fate. Plus, there are lady novelists, fascinating attempts at creating a major metropolis and massive civil service in a place with little to no history of them, and tension and fusion between "high" imported Chinese culture and "low" native Japanese culture. (There is one books series I know of set in this period, the Sugawara Akitada mysteries. The character is supposedly a grandson of that courtier-turned-kami.) The Qing Dynasty is an interesting example of the techniques foreign rulers can use to try to make themselves acceptable to their subjects (no, no, court officials, we aren't calling you back to kill you all - we want to know how to bury the old emperor properly, and you know the rites!) while still maintaining control (mandatory new hairstyle, everyone!). Plus it was a transitional, stressful period kind of like what happened in Europe around the time of enclosure, with the economy grinding toward a new form (iirc they had a sort of putting-out system in China too), and there were interesting events like the sorcery scare of 1768 (connected to the tensions over the foreign rulers and their imposed hairstyle, the economic stresses, and a bunch of other things), and some fascinating and very long-reigning emperors.
Now I want to go and study more, because this reminds me how much more neat history I don't know, or don't know well enough.
3) What is "James Bond exposition"?
From the Jabootu glossary: "James Bond Exposition Rule (n): Film convention that dictates that a supervillain isn’t allowed to kill the hero until he has meticulously revealed his master plan, including vital data regarding time elements and such. Traditionally, this takes so much time that the Villain must leave before personally seeing to it that the hero is taken care of. Inevitably, his goofball assistants then mess up the job, allowing to hero to exploit his newly gained knowledge and disrupt the villain’s plan."
4) Assume that Binns has gone on to wherever ghosts go and the Sorting Hat is now the History of Magic teacher. As you said, it's been around for a thousand years or more. What will it focus on--besides, as you said, the Founders?
Oh, lots of things! It probably knows more about events from before its time than recent people just by virtue of having heard from people closer to the events, so it probably knows what the deal was with Merlin et al. What were the relationships between wizards and Muggles then, and how differentiated were they even? How were magic-users treated under Celts, Saxons, Normans... The Hat probably knows a lot about the Normans, and the Vikings for that matter (maybe one of those groups was the "external deadly foes" it mentioned). It would trace the move toward seclusion, from the early days of... whatever was going on in ancient times... to the founding of Hogwarts in a secluded location, through the witch-hunts of later centuries, into early modern times up to 1689/92. What forces were behind this? Were there Muggles in Hogsmeade in early days, the relatives of witches and wizards? How did the "court wizards" relate to Muggles, to other wizards? Were they seen as traitors, or lucky guys to get cushy jobs, or spies in the enemy camp? How did mainstream Muggle events affect wizards (for instance, what about Jodel's theory about the Quill being created in the 19th century after Muggle-born magical kids being pushed into factory work made magical outbreaks more obvious and thus more dangerous to wizarding secrecy)? How well did seclusion even work at first - or now, for that matter? How did it change conceptions of who was or wasn't pureblooded (they apparently had that concept already, unless the Black tapestry is a massive retcon - possible)?
And like Binns, it'd probably talk a lot about goblin rebellions of the 17th century - but it'd be interesting enough that the kids would pay attention. How did they get from there to the goblins controlling the banks? And what does the goblin concept of ownership mean with regards to all their currency, then? (It'd probably mention exactly what that contract between Godric and the goblins entailed, too.) What have the effects of admitting Muggleborn students been? What have gender politics been like in the ww for the last 1000 years? How did the Wizengamot and Ministry develop, and how did their powers change over time? How does the wizarding economy work? Which Muggle inventions has it adapted?
Crucially, it would also talk about the 20th century. Grindlewald, for instance. And the pureblood supremacist movement. And the suspicious events while Tom Riddle attended, and why they were never tied to him, what happened to him, and how he was able to convince so many purebloods and a halfblood or two that he had the right ideas, with discussion of Hogwarts school culture and the reign of Albus Dumbledore, Headmaster, Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot, Supreme Mugwump of the International Confederation of Wizards, and my isn't that a lot of titles to be holding at once? The Hat will not come out and call him a bad guy or assign Rita's book, but will teach students to think critically about leaders' decisions. The Hat also knows quite a lot about the career of Severus Snape (it was in the office for a lot of crucial conversations, and could always ask the portraits about anything it missed), and students will have debates and write papers arguing issues like Snape's true loyalties (maybe he wanted them both dead for [insert speculative reasons here, with or without Lily] and played them against each other, one student might argue), whether Dumbledore was an effective leader, what a leader's responsibilities are toward his agents, and which actions it is acceptable for a secret agent to take to maintain his cover.
There would be more coverage of the wizarding world outside Britain.
Also, speaking of the portraits of previous headmasters, they'll get to guest lecture.
...I could go on, but that's probably good for now.
5) If you had a daemon, what kind of animal/bird/reptile/etc. would it be and why?
One of my high school classmates once said I'd be a Jesus lizard, but I have no idea why, so I'm going to go with "cat." They're good at entertaining themselves and would often like to be alone, but then suddenly really want to come snuggle with you by the fire, and I identify with that. Plus, they're very clever, but also spend a lot of their time just hanging out or sleeping, which is probably what I'd do if I could.
6) What do you like best about Nnedi Okorafor's writing?
The refreshingly non-cliche settings. No Ye Olde McEurope in sight! Her fantasy parallel world Ginen is very jungle-y and I think everyone there is black, and they have developed biologically-based technologies - you grow your computer from a CPU seed, and even e-readers have very hard leaves for covers. The future!Nigeria in The Shadow Speaker is also great (someone dropped magic bombs a few decades ago, and now lakes appear and disappear at random, camels can talk, and sandstorms want to kill you). But I also love Ejii from The Shadow Speaker, who is one of the few pacifist characters I've run into (who doesn't decide killing is the best way after all). She's got a lot of baggage, what with her father having been a petty tyrant who instituted mandatory veiling and other restrictions before getting his head publicly chopped off by the Red Queen Jaa, who was not happy about his laws. But she tries to do what she thinks is right even when she's terrified. And I loved the scene where she runs into one of those killer sandstorms, and knowing they're probably doomed anyway, she decides she might as well talk to the sandstorm and find out what it wants. (Incidentally, one of Jaa's two husbands used to be a sandstorm. The three of them are very happy together and their in-laws seem happy too.)
7) I notice that you have Richard III as an interest. What is your opinion about the man?
I think he seemed like a decent enough ruler for the time. Protecting prisoners' goods from being seized until after conviction? Nice law to have. He also pardoned a surprising number of people who betrayed him, like the flip-flopping Stanleys, so he doesn't seem to have been especially vindictive. Or maybe it was a cunning plan (which backfired, at least with the Stanleys), but either way, he wasn't keen on killing or even imprisoning everyone he probably legally could have. He was reputedly an accomplished warrior, so he also probably wasn't too squeamish, though, when it came down to it. (And even though he protested strongly against it, as warden of the tower, he probably eventually had to let Edward's people in to kill George. So, shares responsibility for his brother's death. Not great, even though his brother was a traitor.) That no one, friend or foe, disputes his warrior reputation seems a pretty clear indication that he had two good arms and probably no hunchback, and that casts doubt on anything anyone in or just after his time says about him if they also claim those features. So, while he might not have been what we would recognize as a nice, modern guy, I think he got a bad rap overall.
As for the princes... well, first, given that we know Edward contracted a secret marriage with Elizabeth, is it so improbably that he had earlier contracted a different secret marriage with Eleanor Butler? Which doesn't mean he did, just that it isn't an outrageous claim. And if Richard believed it, it isn't all that outrageous - given how seriously they took bastardy - that he would feel obligated to take action, because if he tried to cover it up and someone else found out, that could be a major problem. Which isn't to say he might not have been relieved for an excuse to take the throne himself, especially given the dangers of a minor king surrounded by advisers who don't like Richard. Plus, king! Isn't that what most people in his position would want? But conscience and ambition might have dovetailed nicely.
Then... well, there isn't nearly enough evidence to convict him of the princes' murders, or even to prove that there were murders, or that they happened while he was alive. And he left their sisters and plenty of other claimants alive, which doesn't seem too smart if he were really trying to kill his way to the throne. But then not everyone is smart all the time, so he could have just bungled it. On the other other hand, Henry acted very strangely for someone who supposedly thought Richard had offed his nephews - not even mentioning it for 20 years, once most witnesses were safely dead? And the one witness he did get confessed probably under torture after joining a rebellion and was beheaded shortly after? Fishy. Well, maybe he just didn't know for sure and didn't want to say something in public that could be proven wrong... but there are also just too many other people who could have done it (Buckingham, Henry, Henry's mom...) for me to say Richard's definitely guilty. He might be, and killing your nephews is a horrible thing, but then Henry VII and his descendents did plenty of horrible things too (in Ireland, for instance) and they don't get cast as villains. No, they're "capable administrators." Even when they have their wives' heads chopped off. I think either they ought to be considered villiains, or Richard ought to get more of a pass ("making tough decisions in a tough time! man of his time") like they do. Or something in between - give them more credit for their crimes, and him more credit for the decent things he did.
If anyone wants questions, let me know.