Alright, so I was lazy for a week, but now it’s time to move forward and take a leap in to my next foray in Shakespeare. Now I have all the comedies under my belt, which only leaves the histories and the tragedies. I certainly enjoyed the comedies overall, but I knew I would likely enjoy them more, so I’m a bit nervous to see how I perceive his work now that I’m moving on to the more serious and dramatic works. Now I’m a big fan of depth and drama, but not really a big fan of stories that are told just to see how sad they can be, which is how I perceive tragedies.
Before the tragedies we have the histories though, which is probably the segment of Shakespeare’s work that I’m least familiar with. The tragedies are discussed often in school, even though we rarely read any of them, and only watched film versions of others. The comedies aren’t quite as well known in school, but have a lot of famous lines and stories and sayings, so most people are at least familiar with them. The histories are oddly unknown to me, and we never discussed them in school, even though some seem to say it’s some of his better work. I have to wonder if this will be a bore, or just tragedies based on reality, or what I should really expect from these. I suppose now we’ll find out.
Story
Being just the first part of a series of play the story so far is actually unfinished. Still, I think it’s clear at this point that this series, at least, is closer to a tragedy than it is to a comedy. The story focuses around the life of King Henry VI, although it is quite obviously different from history as we understand it now. Still, based on what we know of Henry VI and his life, it is quite clear that this will not end well at all.
For this part of the play the focus is on the Hundred Years War between England and France. Much of the play is spent with the French forces and Joan la Pucelle (Joan of Arc) and their conflict with the English Forces, generally under the command of Lord Talbot. Interestingly it seems that this part of the play is only a small part of the overall story that the entirety of “Henry VI” is meant to tell, it is still the focus for much of this part.
The other part deals with the newly crowned King Henry and his court of Dukes, and their scheming and infighting which is obviously going to play a much larger role in the coming parts. This is, of course, no surprise since anyone familiar with the history knows of the Wars of the Roses which the English fought amongst each other during this time. This part of play seems to primarily exist as a prelude, and a means to set up this eventual conflict.
The wars in France and the domination of that segment of the story seems primarily to exist in the play to provide some action to accompany the less interesting scheming in the Kings court. It is also meaningful since the end result of these conflicts and the death of Talbot, who becomes a hero to the viewer/reader over the course of the story, serves as a motivational event for what is likely to come since the two Dukes fighting each other blame one another for the outcome.
The play also introduces Margaret of Anjou, who is to become his queen. It also hints that the Duke of Suffolk intends to use the queen to control the king, though this is where the play ends so this little tidbit will be elaborated on in the further parts of the play.
The story itself was somewhat interesting and decently done, although for a play of this length it really didn’t progress very much. I attribute that mostly to the focus on the conflict in France, in spite of the plays overall focus centering primarily on the inner turmoil of Britain during Henry VI’s rule. Considering how dull it would have been without the French conflicts though, I can certainly see why Shakespeare did it, so I’m not really certain if I feel it was a bad thing or not. On the one hand the play would have been dull, but we might have seen more progression of the main plot. Of course, on the other hand we didn’t get much progression but it was still interesting. I could see both sides of the equation to be honest.
One interesting thing I noted was the definite leanings towards the English side, which definitely did not paint the French in a favorable light. This was particularly noticeable with Joan la Pucelle, who is considered a saint but was painted as a cunning and crafty woman who is willing to reject her father when she faces trial as she doesn’t want to admit to being the daughter of a shepherd. She’s also willing to lie about her virginity and honor and tries to claim she is with child to avoid her execution. Considering how favorably history and even people in that time look upon Joan, it’s interesting to see Shakespeare seemingly go out of his way to make her in to such a villain.
Another obvious instance is the portrayal of Talbot, who is painted in the play as a great and honorable and marvelous hero who was the scourge of France. While there is certainly plenty of information to back the claims, there is also quite a bit of information that clearly point to Talbot not quite reaching the level of heroism as he is given in this play. Now, I understand Shakespeare was writing plays for English audiences so I wasn’t expecting him to make the French heroes, it was just interesting to note how far he went in painting the English in a good light and French in such a poor one. I guess propaganda was alive and well during all times of complex human society.
Characters
The titular character of King Henry VI is actually fairly absent from the play, almost not even really appearing until near the middle point. He is portrayed rather favorably, but also as someone who is fairly naive. His role came to some prominence by the end of the play, so I’m confident he’ll be a more central figure in the coming portions, but so far it’s hard to really get a solid read on the character.
Lord Talbot is an English soldier that is responsible for much of the leadership of the forces in France. The story paints him in a very good light, and grants him a memorable and heroic death as well. I think the primary purpose of this character is to present a character the audience really cheers for and sympathizes with, whose death will motivate the audiences interest in the coming events and those responsible for his great loss. His loss is also significant to the other characters as well, and may provide strong motivation for them in the coming parts too.
Joan le Pucelle is known as Joan of Arc, and is a villain in the play. As I mentioned above, she is painted in a very negative light by Shakespeare, given traits generally seen in some of the worst villains. Her final moments in the play in particular make her out to be a truly wretched soul, willing to disown her father to the point he agrees with her sentence, to lying about being with child and sleeping with anyone she can think of in order to win the mercy of her captors. I mean, for a woman of such virtue, as she is generally considered to be, to willingly portray herself as a whore to try and win her freedom is an insult to her legacy. I guess at the time the English didn’t much care for her, so maybe this representation of Joan is simply the result English hatred towards the historical figure.
The other dominant characters are many, and those are the English Dukes. These guys are seemingly gearing up for a nice little civil war of sorts, constantly fighting each other and conspiring against one another. The Duke of York and the Duke of Somerset are the primary combatants involved in this, although this part of the play really only functions as a prelude to their conflict. The death of Talbot is a strike to them both, and they both blame each other for the lack of reinforcements to save him. In a way the audience is also presented with the reality of picking a side since Talbot is easily the most prominent and heroic character, and his death due to the inaction of these two men might even inspire the audience to dislike one or the other or even both.
Another somewhat vital character is Charles the Dauphin, the future King of France. Charles’ primary focus is to provide a villain for Talbot to face and a puppet for Joan to control, since most of the actions of the French in the play are her decisions, not his. The Duke of Burgundy is another minor character who simply betrays the English and joins with the French, resulting in the confrontation that eventually kills Talbot. Neither of these characters are really developed well, as few others in this play really were.
Margaret, the betrothed of King Henry, is introduced near the end, although she is hardly developed at this point. Her encounter with the Duke of Suffolk is slightly comical, one of the few such moments in the play, and she certainly does seem to have a strong will and wit. Of course, these might just be machinations of that bit of the play and nothing more, it’s hard to say since her role ended there for this portion. I only note her presence since she is certain to become a huge player in the parts of the play yet to come.
Writing
I will admit that the writing quality of this play does seem to be generally above the average quality of the comedies. The language was very well written and the lines seem to have more attention given to them. While there was a lack of truly memorable quotes, there wasn’t really a point where the script seemed poorly written or a chore to read. The worst part was really the very beginning with the long lines spoken amongst the Dukes before things progressed to the second scene.
While the wordplay was quite good, the pacing could have used some work. As I mentioned already, I’m not sure if the focus on a side story to get some action in the story was really worth the slow pace in which the overall story progressed in this part. I imagine it’s preferable to how it otherwise would have been, but I still can’t help but feel it could have been handled a little better so that the overall story could still progress a bit more than it did.
Closing Comments
I would say that so far I’m liking the play, but I will admit that I am not liking it as much as I generally did enjoy the comedies. Still, this is only part 1 of this play and the first of the histories for me, so there’s more to come yet and things might yet change. I’ll admit the quality of the dialog seemed a bit better, but the story itself is otherwise lacking in comparison, and is quite a bit less enjoyable.
I have a feeling this might be how I see most of the plays coming up from here on out. I won’t deny that tragedies and downtrodden dramas aren’t really my cup of tea, and so I fear even the plays I enjoy will still be less enjoyable than the ones I’ve already read. That’s not to say I won’t recognize greater quality than I see it, but ultimately they are plays and enjoyment of the material and story is still a vital factor that I can’t ignore.
© 2010, Keonyn. All rights reserved.
Tags: Barnes and Noble, Shakespeare, The Histories, The Yale Shakespeare, William Shakespeare
