Essay on Narcissism and Metadrama in Richard II

Throughout the entirety of Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet, if one looks carefully, one can see many aspects of Marxist thought prevalent in the story. To effectively analyze a story through a Marxist critical lens, the reader needs to pay close attention to how characters of different classes interact with one another, especially in respect to class oppression and social inequity, particularly if the actions or words of a character talk of rebellion against the upper classes. “To Marxist critics, a society's economic base determines the interests and styles of its literature; it is this relationship between determining base and determined superstructure that is the main

The language of Shakespeare connects both King Richard III & Looking for Richard, enriching the significance of each & enabling both to provide continuous meaning for a range of contexts. The apparently outdated language of Shakespeare is given new life for the modern context, enabling audiences to better understand the original text & thus elevating the play. The film Looking for Richard, through rehearsals of actors, cuts between scholars and ‘random’ people on the street,

Shakespeare was very specific, in 1603, about his choice of words when he wrote the play, “Othello”. The three language devices – “words as power”, “words as character” and “words as conversation” with the audience – are used to create characters’ identities and fates, and also to drive the plot of the play (Krieger, 2012).

Connections of commonality and dissimilarity may be drawn between a multiplicity of texts through an appreciation of the values and attitudes with which they were composed. Accordingly, the values and attitudes of the individual being may be defined as an acute blend of externally induced, or contextual and internally triggered, or inherent factors. Cultural, historical, political, religious and social influences, dictated by the nature of one’s surroundings, imprint a variable pattern of values and attitudes upon the individual. Thus any deviation in any such factor may instigate an alteration of the contextual component of one’s perspective. By contrast, the

Differing from the typical use of theatrical resources which illuminate works on the stage, Shakespeare delved into the basis of theatre itself, ingraining these concepts into his own texts in an effort to connect his readers to the labyrinth of complexities his plays present. Deep within the intricate pages of Hamlet, the appearance of metatheatre arises through the performance of The Murder of Gonzago, implicitly creating a denunciatory parallel towards the actions of Claudius the King. The meta-theatrical play places Hamlet himself in the role of a playwright and director as he manipulates the text to be analogous to his reality as well as create an ominous foreshadowing towards future scenes. The play serves as the framework for the main courses of action, allowing the tragic events to not only are mirrored, but to directly affect the secondary characters. Meta-theatre successfully catalyzes the relationship between character and plot development, and sets Shakespeare’s writing techniques apart from any other literary work of the time.

To examine Shakespeare’s exploration of identity as a means of control, it is important to understand what all constitutes each character’s identity. In the case of Henry, for one, it is apparent that the actions of his past alter his perceived identity throughout the play. Before Henry speaks his first lines in the play, the Bishop of Ely calls Henry a “true lover of the holy Church,” to which the Archbishop of Canterbury replies, “The courses of [Henry’s] youth promised it not” (1.1.23-24). This reckless reputation follows Henry further into the play when an ambassador from France delivers a message to Henry from the Dauphin: “…the prince our master says that you savor too much of your youth and bids you to be advised there’s naught in France that can be with a nimble galliard won: you cannot revel into dukedoms there” (1.2.250-254). Along with this message, the Dauphin included a gift of tennis balls meant to further insult Henry. Even later in the play, after the English won the battle at Harfleur, the noble Frenchmen continue to underestimate Henry’s ability as a leader: “What a wretched and peevish fellow is this King of England, to mope with his fat-brained followers so far out of his knowledge” (3.8.120-122).

William Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1, composed during the last years of the 16th century, is as much as character study as it is a retelling of a moment in history. Though the play is titled for one king, it truly seems to revolve around the actions of the titular character's successor. Indeed, Henry IV is a story of the coming-of-age of Prince Hal and of the opposition that he must face in this evolution. This process gives narrative velocity to what is essentially a conflagration between two personality types. In Prince Hal, the audience is given a flawed but thoughtful individual. Equally flawed but more given over to action than thought is his former ally and now-nemesis, Hotspur. In the latter, Shakespeare offers a warrior and a man of action and in the former, the playwright shows a politician in his nascent stages of development. The contrast between them will drive the play's action.

play, “The Tragedy of Hamlet”, Shakespeare’s vindictive and psychopathic ethos allows the reader to have an introspective view on the “socially acceptable.” The play adheres to shocking subjects and themes that push society’s standards. During the English Romantic period, William Shakespeare’s sentimentality in the topics of suicide, depression, and family dynamics transformed his plays; despite, the contrasting ideals of the protestant church and the Elizabethan era. Subsequently, William Shakespeare was one of few playwrights to incorporate the use of sentiment

The Player’s recitation develops clear analogues to the actions of Hamlet and Gertrude, making her an antithesis of queen Hecuba and, ironically, making her son a potential Pyrrhus. In fact, the myth of Aeneas witnessing Priam’s death straightens for once the prince’s tangled resolve. After the Speech, the Second Act closes with Hamlet’s intimate soliloquy, “O what a rogue and peasant slave am I,” and reveals “that the Player has wept and spoken Hamlet's own emotions for him. ”2 A model of metatheatricality, the Player’s speech is a showpiece of Shakespeare’s dramatic economy.

Shakespeare masters the idea that consciousness is the pinnacle of the human experience. Without the ability to reflect upon oneself, there is no room for optimum growth and self-reflection. In Shakespeare's tragedy Hamlet, Shakespeare develops Hamlet’s metacognition through three substantial soliloquies by solidifying the idea that both conscious decision making and reflection work synonymously in determining self-actualization as well as foiling Hamlet with individual characters throughout the play.

The word Renaissance means “rebirth” and is used to represent a period in which there was tremendous growth in literature, poetry, and drama. During that time, there were many great playwrights; one of them was William Shakespeare, who wrote different genres of play, such as comedy, tragedy, and histories. One of his famous tragedies play is Hamlet, which based on Prince Hamlet’s revengeful plan against his uncle, King Claudius. However, some critics question Hamlet’s insanity and they believe Hamlet is actually pretending to be insane. The purpose of this essay is to examine the extent to which the character, Hamlet, is insane. Despite different critics’ opinions regarding Hamlet’s insanity, it seems Hamlet is not insane at the beginning

Shakespeare’s impressive use of metaphor, simile, or image in Richard II makes it become one of the greatest English work in the world literature. Among these rhetorical effects, the metaphor is all over the place in the work. However, the type of metaphor considered to be one of the most significant during Richard II is the gardening metaphor. The garden scene, which is from Act 3, scene 4 of the play, has successfully provided the perspective of a subject – a gardener – about the kingdom at present and the sound, reasonable nature of the overthrown.

Richard II, by William Shakespeare, is a play about a King whom is a poor chose in spending his countries wealth, separated from his subjects, and makes unwise decisions for counsel. Richard II then begins to lease land to wealthy noblemen and takes the money from a deceased uncle to fund his lifestyle the commoners and other noblemen become outraged. In the play there are symbolisms to England as being like “Eden”; and the first symbolism and maybe one of the most significant ones is by John of Gaunt in Act 2, scene 1, lines 31-68. After Gaunt’s symbolic reference to England as a garden there are other symbolisms towards gardens referenced throughout the play along that aid in Shakespeare’s use of imagery.

William Shakespeare’s Richard III is a political work of genius of its time, the way Shakespeare can propagate the tutor dynasty and retell the history of his state in such a compelling way is quite remarkable. The work centralizes itself around the inner workings of the royal court just after the war of the roses and prior to the uprising of the tutor dynasty. The character of Richard III is both protagonist and antagonist in the work, however throughout this paper, we will be commenting on the connections found between the character of Margaret and certain themes in the production. More specifically, how she is used as a device in conveying the themes of Corruption, the implementation of the Supernatural, and the anger and rage found in her (and others) text.

It is often troublesome to break into a piece of such total and remarkable brilliance as King Lear. Studying Shakespeare can, sometimes, seem to be interpreted as an insincere activity, performed only to impress literature enthusiasts. But, there are instances when one goes over entries that, by the extreme power of their magnificence, jump off the page and echo so definitely inside one's thoughts that they turn into a sort of making better of the whole play. One can read King Lear over and over, and still be struck once more by Shakespeare's complete and total control over language; without a doubt, no other author had so full a feeling of, and who used to such harsh endings, the power of words. In a genre that contradicts a novelist's riches of story explanation, the language in its purest form becomes Shakespeare's powerful instrument, wherein he controls it with the unusual combination of force, detail, and correctness.