Genre Commentary -History

Histories were not quite history as much as story. (I suppose one can say they got rid of the friendly "hi") The purpose may have seemed to have been a cruel representation of Richard III, but I think it is a political play. Yes, to imagine Shakespeare a politician! Really, though, Shakespeare lived in a time where what Richard did in the play was commonplace in real life. Henry VIII executed two people only a few days after he took the throne (at a young age, mind you!) just because Daddy didn't like them. (Yes, even though Daddy was dead he still lopped off their heads.) Shakespeare also had several plays banned at different times because they had characters or events that were similar to events that had recently happened. Sound similar to stuff over here? Shakespeare was a politician as much as he was a literary genius. He was making a statement about the events of his time through fiction where anyone else of less prominence could lose their heads for so much as uttering it. Also, the play's events were based on rumor, and Richard was just as bad as the devil if not worse. I doubt the real Richard the Third was actually that bad. Sure, he may have made a few mistakes and done some unpopular things, I haven't checked exactly what, but I doubt he was the very incarnation of evil. Current example? Richard Nixon. Personally a snake like that shouldn't be allowed to roam the White House halls as freely, but he did do some decent things during his presidency. Of course, he did several less popular things, which is what the public always remembers. Perhaps there is a correlation between the two Richards. (though I'm sure they weren't nicknamed "Dick" for nothing, another amusing coincidence)

Either way, Shakespeare did use the Histories as a form of political discussion. He also keeps the audience objective by making the villains villains and the heroes heroes. The story is fairly static. There isn't a great change in character for anyone. Nothing to mourn except the events of the story, nothing to laugh at except the foolish nature of the characters. It's just telling a story, not trying to entertain us. It's telling us what's going on, not leaving us to wonder the next twist of the plot. The purpose is not to entertain, but to inform. And it is not informing us what history is comprised of, but more that history can repeat itself. What one sees can very easily have happened, and what could have happened may still happen later.