This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Plot and brief characterisation of Richard II was copied or moved into Richard II (play) with this edit on 00:57, 31 January 2003. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
[moved from Talk:Plot and brief characterisation of Richard II when that article was moved here]
Why is this a separate article from Richard II, and doesn't it need to be edited to sound more like an encyclopedia article than a homework assignment? -- isis 12:26 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)
This stuff is odd, and probably oughtn't to be in the article:
This accusation is not fully understandable for the reader because Shakespeare withholds the historical facts, and these facts are not mentioned in the further progress of the play.
He speaks in the whole play in a melodious verse and this is supported by images. They are mostly taken from the four elements. Richard himself is compared with fire, the strongest element. On the reverse side, his nemesis is compared with water. This suggests that they contradict each other. While they are speaking, the air is noticeable, it can be said that it is responsible for the neutrality between the fire and the water. The earth is represented by the country itself which is going to be destroyed by the fire, the king. In the progress of the play the positions of the main characters change and because of Richard's deposition, Bullingbrook gains the connotation of the fire.
I think the article without the stuff is perfectly good, and this stuff really isn't very much like an encyclopedia article. john 03:42 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I think this is an excellent article on Richard II. I just think it could benefit from using footnotes connecting the existing citations to non-plot based areas of the article, such as the Historical Context section. While I've heard the Elizabeth quotations before, for example, it would be beneficial to see where the quotations were pulled from so those less familiar would be able to investigate the material further. I'm not doubting the information; I just think someone more familiar to the references than I could go through and footnote the sources to make this article better.-- Trentsketch ( talk) 13:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Elizabeth's quote ("I am Richard II, know ye not that?") appears in Ernst Kanterowicz, The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology (Princeton University Press, 1957), 41. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.228.141 ( talk) 03:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The Arden Shakespeare copy of Richard II, spells Green and Scroop with an E on the end. Does it matter which is used? -- TimothyJacobson ( talk) 13:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I see a contradiction here. In "Structure and language", the article says "not only bloodline but also intellect and political savvy contribute to the makings of a good king.", suggesting that Richard II was lacking these qualities. Later, in the fourth paragraph, we read that "Richard's character as a man who likes to analyze situations rather than act upon them." It seems to me that here Richard is presented as a man possessing intellect, since he is able to analyze situations. You don't use bloodline to do that. So, does anyone have any clue what's going on here? -- Alexander ( talk) 21:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I did a minimal edit, changing 'production' to 'project', as the word was misleading. I should have done more really. The project was known as The BBC Shakespeare, not The Shakespeare Plays.
And I doubt whether Gielgud really put himself on the map with his first Richard in 1929. The Old Vic was very unfashionable then. It was surely his modern Richard in "Richard of Bordeaux", in the West End, that changed everything.
Rogersansom ( talk) 10:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Is this the same work as "The Life and Death of Richard the Second"? If same, which title is the "official" one? -- KpoT ( talk) 23:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
"The rise of a Machiavellian king" section contains only one footnote and reads like a college essay by an ignorant student. The reference is to nine pages of an obscure anthology, and in no way explains which -- if any -- points in the section are attributed.
I have removed two of the stupider statements in the sophomore English class essay, but the whole should be deleted, particularly given the disproportion of these eight pages of an anthology compared to the dozens of equally or more valid sources on the play.
I've just read a fascinating online piece by Eliot Cohen, published on 5 October this year in The Atlantic, under the title 'The Feckless King The president’s fall has come, and it has a Shakespearean flavor': https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/trump-shakespeare/616612/. Cohen argues that there are some striking similarities between Trump and the way that Shakespeare develops the character of Richard II. The Shakespearean comparison has become even more relevant now that Trump has lost the election, and his refusal to concede defeat. I am wondering whether there might be some space to reference this interpretation within this article on the play? Perhaps a mention of contemporary applications of Richard II? I would be interested to hear what other editors think. HistoryEditor3 ( talk) 18:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
This article is very good indeed, and motivates me to suggest an improvement:-
The statement "Unusually for Shakespeare, Richard II is written entirely in verse,..." is not quite accurate, and needs amending to:
"Unusually for Shakespeare, Richard II is written in rhyming verse, whereas normally Shakespeare writes mostly in blank verse, iambic pentameters (five beats)."
Plays like Romeo and Juliet likewise have immortal rhyming verse. Andysoh ( talk) 22:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)