Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Cross Characterization

As I am reading through “Richard the III” I can’t help but notice a simple connection in characterization that exists between this play and “Hamlet.”  Throughout the later the audience is fascinated by the psychological depth of Hamlet.  For example, in act 2 scene 2 he curses:

“Oh, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!...
  I a dull and muddy-mettled rascal, peak
  Like John-a-dreams, unpregnant of my cause,
  And can say nothing – no, not for a king
  Upon whose property and most dear life
  A damned defeat was made.  Am I a coward?”

Similarly, in “Richard the III” the audience is at once repulsed, and allured by the king-to-be.  Look at his opening soliloquy:

           “Cheated of feature by dissembling Nature,
 Deformed, unfinished, sent before my time
 Into this breathing world scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them-…
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover
            To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
            I am determined to prove a villain
            And hate the idle pleasures of these days.”

There is a similarity among these self aware characters that makes them more accessible to the audience.  While a given individual might not correlate with the death-plotting of these characters, by making them self aware the audience is able to relate to their sense of brooding, their questioning nature that muses over the finite principles of life.  These two of Shakespeare’s psychological characters in this way attach themselves to the dark side of human nature in the audience, which even if detested, or overcome through saintly living, is still recognizable in some degree in the audience.  What other similarities I will find by cross analyzing the plays?  This is fun!

Comments (3)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
The self awareness of the characters might be evidence of sincerity. A modern day example is Puck from "Glee." I do not follow the show, but I have hard great things about Puck. He does stupid things, but he is sincere about who he is. Sincerety is fairly similr to self-awareness, but it takes it to the next level. Not only is the character aware of what he or she is, but is true to said characterization. Hypocrisy, if it is part of the character, is acceptable for the other characters in the play, but not the audience. Just my take, no official findings on this theory.
But is sincerity morally redemptive, Johnny?

In any case, Bryan, that simple quotation and comparison of the two plays and characters is a great type of blog post, and perhaps in comparing Hamlet and Richard III on this you've identified a trend in Shakespeare's writing. I wonder, has anyone done any studies on Shakespeare's brooding characters, or this type of confessional speech? In doing a quick search on Google Scholar, I came across the classic book by Geoffrey Bullough (Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare) which you might be interested in, anyway, because of the focus on sources. Anyway, a search in that book for "Shakespeare brooding" yielded a reference to Macbeth brooding. I'm sure there are others.
1 reply · active 740 weeks ago
Thanks for the tip. Though I am intending to focus more on the sources of the plays, I was thinking that this might be a good analysis to examine, and will look into it further. I like it because it gives me a chance to do a thorough analysis of the rhetoric and look for trends. Thanks for the direction.

Post a new comment

Comments by