My rating:

add to my books

read book

Richard III (Modern Library Classics)

by William Shakespeare

3.86 · rating details · 10,026 ratings · 365 reviews

An exciting new edition of the complete works of Shakespeare with these features: Illustrated with photographs from New York Shakespeare Festival productions, vivid readable readable introductions for each play by noted scholar David Bevington, a lively personal foreword by Joseph Papp, an insightful essay on the play in performance, modern spelling and pronunciation, up-...more

Paperback, 244 pages

Published August 12th 2008 by Modern Library (first published 1602)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

There is a good chance some of your friends read this book. Sign in to see!

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

This book is currently not featured on any Listopia lists. Add this book to your favorite list »

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 13,464)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Feb 04, 2012

Elizabeth rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: tam-lin, 2009, elizabethan-my-dear, in-by-of-england, in-theater, reviewed

The characters of King Richard III are the people who sit around council tables and plot wars. They are the people who bring vials of anthrax into the UN General Assembly to scare people into acceptance. They are the people who pass laws that a woman can be starved by her husband if she "withholds" sex. They are the people who planned and executed Germany's Final Solution. They sit in board rooms and approve plans to pay children $2/day for sweatshop conditions. They give each other h...moreThe characters of King Richard III are the people who sit around council tables and plot wars. They are the people who bring vials of anthrax into the UN General Assembly to scare people into acceptance. They are the people who pass laws that a woman can be starved by her husband if she "withholds" sex. They are the people who planned and executed Germany's Final Solution. They sit in board rooms and approve plans to pay children $2/day for sweatshop conditions. They give each other huge bonuses while doing whatever they can to avoid renegotiating unreasonable loans.

There are two things that define this group (and the characters). The first is that they have the power to do these things. The second is how perfectly normal these people are. Colin Powell, no one thinks of him as inherently evil, and I'm doing anything but suggesting he is. But he was at the table with the vial. The brilliance of this play is how easily it shows the corruption of people in power. How they get caught up in in-fights, power-plays, struggles to come out on top. I'd suggest that it represents every one who goes to work for a big corporation, but I've also seen it in the people who do not, the ones who go off to live in the woods, deliberately. It's just a difference of how much power the person wields. It is the normalcy of this behavior that we are watching in Richard III.

My personal opinion of Richard is that actors overplay him (yes, like the Monty Python sketch). They overplay the hunchback, they add limps, they distort his face with slurring make-up. They take the textual suggestions of ugliness too literally. I think he should be played subtly. Someone who makes you forget the deformity. Someone who attracts you and repels you at the same time. The audience should almost believe that Anne, seduced over her husband's coffin, actually falls for him.

They shouldn't fully believe though. Oh yes, Richard is a villain, who becomes crueler as they play goes on, but making him physically repulsive dilutes the normalcy of his evilness. Other than Anne, there isn't another character to like in here, so I'm indulging. They may say women are fickle but is anyone so fickle that she falls in love across a corpse? She is just as devious as the other characters at some level, which comes out well in this early scene. The others are just terrible, terrible people, each relieved when an enemy is taken away. Each looking for what another character's death will do for him or her.

While I was reading it I kept thinking of the Martin Niemoller quote...first they came for the communists, and he didn't speak up, then they came for the Jews, but he was not a Jew, etc. It's the obliviousness of the characters that is the tragedy of this play. No one does anything because the target is someone he wants taken out. It's someone else who is the problem; I'm safe, until, of course, Richard's ruthless drive for power and paranoia means that no one is else is left and the monster that they created turns on them. Richard wasn't born and raised in isolation. That court created him, nurtured him, and then let him loose with no checks on him.

This is where I think the play falls apart. Power politics is a way of life, especially in the English Court. They'd recently survived Henry VIII, Edward, Jane (for a brief moment), Mary, Elizabeth...these were not kind and generous monarchs who protected the average English denizen from the rampages of the court's politics. Shakespeare's audience (or potential audience) would completely understand the situation on stage. As brilliant (that's the second time I've used that word, I know) as the representation of this mundane wickedness is, someone has to be the savior. Shakespeare needs to reinstate the validity of the monarchy. He needs to justify that one of these repulsive human beings deserves to be king. I much preferred the part where everyone was disgusting. Shakespeare does morally corrupt characters better than anyone else. The seduction to the dark side, the loss of values, the vile acts, the eventual realization, the final despair - totally fantastic. Wrapping it up with one of those questionable characters coming up out on top isn't his strongest ability.

Here I am at the end of the play and I haven't talked about the poetry. There is some in here. It is harder to find than in Hamlet or As You Like It but there are some excellent passages. My favorite women are also in this play. Don't give me simpering, cross-dressing girls pretending to be dead or someone they're not. Give me a woman weighing the political consequence of her actions. The back and forth between Richard and first Anne and then later Queen Elizabeth is really some of the most fun to be had at the theater.

A most enjoyable read, especially after a recent spate of books with totally wishy-washy villains. No one else creates them as Shakespeare does.(less)

like 32 likes

· see review

Oct 25, 2009

Madeline rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: shakespeare

Richard III, abridged:

RICHARD: Mwahahaha! Mwahahahahaha! Mwahaha!
CLARENCE: Hey brother! So, I guess I'm being sent to the Tower of London. Sucks, right?
RICHARD: Don't worry, Clarence, you'll be fine. I'll try and get you out, and certainly won't hire assassins to kill you or anything.
CLARENCE: Awesome! You're the best!
RICHARD: Mwahahaha!
ANNE: You killed my husband and my son in the last play, you asshole! I HATE YOU SO MUCH!
RICHARD: I only kill...more

like 40 likes

· see review

Mar 27, 2009

Manny rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: why-not-call-it-poetry

Richard is ugly, and the girls aren't interested. This really sours his attitude. He decides to plunge the country into another ruinous civil war; that'll show the bitches.

But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamp'd, and want love's majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtail'd of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfini...more

like 7 likes

· see review

Jun 08, 2011

Michele rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: classics, fiction

This is the evil Richard III upon which all future "monster Richards" would be based upon. It doesn't matter that the play isn't accurate...you must remember that Shakespeare wrote this knowing that Elizabeth I would be seeing it and since Richmond was her grandfather and the founder of her Tudor dynasty, of course Richard had to be bad, bad, bad. And is he ever bad!

Richard schemes, plots, murders and lies his way through the play to grab the crown. There is absolutely n...more

like 1 like

· see review

Apr 01, 2008

Cheri rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: drama-british

I've been re-reading my Shakespeare. I love this play so much, the language is so rich and lovely. I've also been re-watching all the Shakespeare films, so this is a duel medium review.

I hate, hate, hate the Lawrence Olivier Richard III. Firstly, he adds pieces of monologues from other plays to the opening speech, (a speech which is perfect on it's own). Apparently, it was supposed to be under the guise of making it more understandable, but comes off as awful! Add to that the fac...moreI've been re-reading my Shakespeare. I love this play so much, the language is so rich and lovely. I've also been re-watching all the Shakespeare films, so this is a duel medium review.

I hate, hate, hate the Lawrence Olivier Richard III. Firstly, he adds pieces of monologues from other plays to the opening speech, (a speech which is perfect on it's own). Apparently, it was supposed to be under the guise of making it more understandable, but comes off as awful! Add to that the fact that he doesn't seem to adjust his performance for the screen one bit. I have no doubt he was an amazing stage performer, but on film he just makes me gag. The opening speech is nearly incomprehensible - and I know the play! It's all shouting and ACTING. I don't believe for a second that Lady Anne falls for him. I don't believe that anyone wouldn't know that he's a conniving sociopath.

Then I watched Looking for Richard. Al Pacino's documentary filming his work on the play. I love Kevin Klein talking about his first time seeing the play, as well as watching some of the cast tackle the work. But there are obvious flaws - Winona Ryder as Lady Anne - is Al kidding? She's like a lesson in how not to perform Shakespeare. And often he seems to think that no American has ever read Shakespeare at all, much less gone to see it. So, some of the stuff he says is just silly. I'm not sure why he took that tack, considering that anyone who was going to see an obscure documentary about an actor delving into a Shakespearean role, was probably going to be a bit of a nerd. In the end it's a little weird, but mostly fun.

Then there is Ian McKellen's Richard III. I love him, love the film, love his performance. I can't complain about much with this one, only my big two pet peeves with Shakespeare films - 1. crowds laugh during speeches that are not funny - it's like the director just didn't know what to say to the extras. And 2. "stage" faces from some of the actors when they're listening to said speeches. Damnit, can't they just listen? Otherwise... Awesome.

If anyone knows of any other DVD Richard the III's please let me know!(less)

like 1 like

· see review

Feb 07, 2009

Rufusgermanicus Meelberg rated it

· review of another edition

Absolutely brilliant. It might bade fair to replace MacBeth or Lear in my favorite spots of Shakespeare. To give you an idea, this edition with it's notes was helpful for a few things, but those who read Shakespeare frequently know most of the more archaic or anachronistic words to understand the text. There is some of those words here, but it's a much simpler play in terms of language than some of this others. And some of the passages are strikingly bald and straightforward, such as when Richar...more

· see review

Feb 04, 2012

Esdaile rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: i-own-it, overrated-books, renaissance-drama, theatre, politically-committed

I think that if I were asked to name the Shakespeare play which I least enjoyed, I would name this one. It is a piece of propaganda from beginning to end. It is not worthy of comparison with Shakespeare's
far superior Richard II, whether in terms of poetry, psychology or dramatic quality. This is not to say that there are not memorable elements to the play, foremost of course, the opening solilloquoy, the epitome of the characteristic in English literature to create caricature and paint it ...more

· see review

Jul 22, 2011

David Sarkies rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: tragedy

This is one of Shakespeare's earlier tragedies though it is considered more of a history than a tragedy. A history it might be, but it can be argued that it is not an accurate history, but rather a piece of propaganda that was designed to cement the power of the current Tudor dynasty (not that Elizabeth I needed anything to cement her power).
The play is set in the closing years of the Wars of the Roses. This was a civil war in England between two noble houses, Lancaster and York, and rule...more This is one of Shakespeare's earlier tragedies though it is considered more of a history than a tragedy. A history it might be, but it can be argued that it is not an accurate history, but rather a piece of propaganda that was designed to cement the power of the current Tudor dynasty (not that Elizabeth I needed anything to cement her power).
The play is set in the closing years of the Wars of the Roses. This was a civil war in England between two noble houses, Lancaster and York, and rulership of the realm shifted between both of them during the period. Richard was not an illegitimate ruler since his brother Edward did name him as Lord Protector, but that was because he intended his eldest child would inherit the throne. However when his children disappeared in the Tower of London, that obviously was not going to happen.
It has been argued, and I tend to agree, that the purpose of this play was to demonise Richard of Gloucester, turning him into an usurper and a tryant as opposed to simply an ambitious ruler. There is no evidence that he actually murdered Edward's children (other than this play of course, but the play was produced 100 years after the events in which it depicts).
The play tracks the course of Richard ascension to the throne, and then his descent into tyranny, and finally his defeat at the Battle of Bodsworth field, which brought an end to the war and secured the Tudor dynasty on the throne. However, despite the propaganderous nature of this play, in those days legitimacy was still, even in a civilised country like England (to the extent that one could be call England civilised) determine by the relative power of the ruler. He who had the strongest forces ended up being the one entitled to rule. This is clear when Richard was defeated as Henry ascended the throne and from his loins came the Tudor dynasty (which lasted about 100 years).
It is also interesting to note that unlike the English civil war, which was a war between the protestants and the Catholics, as well as a war between the parliamentarians and the monarchists, this was a classic medieval civil war where two royal houses strove for dominance. It is not surprising that this war broke out because it occurred immediately on the heels of the unsuccessful Hundred Years War where England attempted to conquer France and failed. It is not surprising that this happened as defeat in a war generally signals weakness in a ruler, and when a ruler is seen to be weak, then his authority will be challenged. Another aspect of this period is England moving from the medieval world into the modern world as, after this period, England was stable, politically at least, until the outbreak of the civil war, though during that period we see the split from the Catholic Church (another sign of the country's movement into the modern world), and the development of a very strong literary culture.(less)

· see review

Jul 07, 2011

Libby rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: unforgettable

This single play causes more conflict in me than all the other works of Shakespeare together. This play has it all when considered as drama. Aristotle said drama should inspire terror and pity and this one does that so thoroughly. It goes right to the heart of bitter envy, of loneliness, of pain, all curdling in the juices of family and turning to hatred and revenge. The action builds ominously and the dialog is---well---Shakespearian. The lines roll out so beautifully that sometimes I lose the ...more

like 1 like

· see review

Oct 09, 2010

Nikki rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: plays, for-class, classics

(My first book finished during the readathon!)

I don't like reading plays, really. I much prefer to see them performed -- they make much more sense when you do. And I'm not really a fan of Shakespeare: either he's too modern for me or not modern enough (my interest peters out shortly after Malory, ish, and doesn't revive until it starts to struggle back to life with Austen -- and even then...). No doubt some of you are just itching to say (probably not the first time) that I must be a p...more

· see review

Aug 03, 2010

notgettingenough rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: drama

I hate you Al Pacino. Hate, hate, hate. You aren’t just the summer of my discontent, you are all four seasons and then some. Oh, and I take back anything I might have said about marrying you if you stop doing Martin Scorsese movies.

You do this movie, Al Pacino, Looking for Richard. This insidious movie that draws you in, entices you, sucks you into the idea that you gotta, gotta, gotta see Al Pacino doing Richard III, Al Pacino and his American mates have done just the best Richard I...more

like 3 likes

· see review

Mar 29, 2010

Angelia rated it

· review of another edition

When Richard takes his place on stage and begins the play, the audience, knowing full well his story already, listens as he hisses the opening lines like the snake that he is: "Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this son of York." All the actor has to do is stress each "s" just a bit, and the effect is chilling. We know what kind of man we're dealing with here.

Richard is a machiavelle in Shakespeare's play, and Shakespeare had good reason...more

· see review

Mar 07, 2010

Steven Peterson rated it

· review of another edition

Great tragedy, probably not such great history. This is Shakespeare's play about the villainous Richard III. It shows his vaulting ambition to become king and demonstrates the steps that he takes to ensure that, such as the death of his brother the Duke of Clarence and the murder of his cousing, the sons of his brother, Edward IV. His dismissive view of his wife, Anne Neville, too, is a part of his character.

His moves to consolidate his power, though, produce unrest. The play ends wi...more

· see review

Jan 02, 2010

Liquidiamonds rated it

· review of another edition

Richard or Gloucester (not to be confused with Lear's Gloucester) announces that "Now is the Winter of our discontent" (I, i, 1) and we all watch and read - stunned - as he discusses with his audience who he is, what he has done, and what he plans to do: murder, dissemble, get the throne of England...and we go along for the ride, just to be let down in the denouement of Act V...so why read it? 1) it is a study of the Tudor Myth (remember, the House of Tudor was not in line for success...more

· see review

Oct 20, 2009

Bruce rated it

· review of another edition

How enjoyable it is to return to a Shakespeare play and re-experience it after long absence. So many lines are familiar, yet always seem fresh. At the beginning of his historical plays, I always struggle a bit to figure out who the characters are and what their relationships are to each other, but once that becomes clear, it’s clear sailing. In this case, one wonders why Richard is so malignant? It seems unlikely to be simply the result of his physical deformities and the rejection that he m...moreHow enjoyable it is to return to a Shakespeare play and re-experience it after long absence. So many lines are familiar, yet always seem fresh. At the beginning of his historical plays, I always struggle a bit to figure out who the characters are and what their relationships are to each other, but once that becomes clear, it’s clear sailing. In this case, one wonders why Richard is so malignant? It seems unlikely to be simply the result of his physical deformities and the rejection that he may have experienced because of them, but maybe that is an important part of the answer. Some people seem malignant by temperament, whatever that means; I guess I think of that as inherent and not the result of experience, but maybe that is unfair and inaccurate. Richard’s motivations are clear from the beginning, his desire to be king clearly stated; his dissembling and unctuous hypocrisy permeate all his relationships and set the tone of the play. How does he differ from, say, Iago? The latter’s vileness seems more motiveless, although he does seem to indicate jealousy as part of his reason for hating Othello; but he has no apparent goal other than Othello’s destruction. Richard, at least, has a specific goal in mind that he sees as being to his benefit.

Given Richard’s endless plots and duplicity, why do his allies, eg Buckingham, think that they themselves will not at last fall victim to his ambition and caprices? History suggests that such almost always happens, and such concerns would seem inevitably to arise. Is the lure of being close to power so seductive? Do men always think that they will be the exception to the rule? Or is there truly honor among thieves? Apparently not, for Buckingham eventually falls at Richard’s hand. And, as one by one his supporters desert him, Richard is progressively isolated by both his policies and his own paranoia, finally coming to an ignominious end, defeated and slain by Richmond, who ascends the throne as Henry VI.

It is impossible not to be equally moved each time I read this magnificent play.
(less)

like 1 like

· see review

Sep 07, 2009

Michael rated it

· review of another edition

Recommends it for: Writers, directors, actors, theatergoers

Shelves: classics, drama

This portrayal of the history's greatest villain (however historically inaccurate) remains my personal favorite Shakespeare play. Richard is the model upon which later villains, such as Darth Vader and the demonized media variety of Adolf Hitler are based. His reveling in evil is constantly entertaining and effective. The story lacks an interesting hero, which gives Richard all the more time to plot, rave, smooth, cog, and kill. He manipulates his way to the throne, and then is soon undone by th...more

· see review

Jan 02, 2011

Marija rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: classics, drama, medieval-renaissance

For me, this play will forever be associated with Neil Simon’s The Goodbye Girl and Richard Dreyfuss’ exaggerated effeminate portrayal of Richard III in that off-off-Broadway production of Shakespeare’s play.

But now having finally read Shakespeare’s play, I think I know where Dickens got his inspiration for his character, Uriah Heep in the book David Copperfield. Richard reminds me so much of Heep, with his outward acts of modesty and humble nature displaying no interest in furtherin...more

· see review

Mar 13, 2010

Wendy rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: audio, drama

Many years ago, I attempted to read Richard III, and never got very far. I largely blame my unfamiliarity at the time with English history, but I also have to admit that it really helps to hear this play performed.

Shakespeare's Richard is one of the great anti-heroes of English literature, and it's very enjoyable to watch him in action and marvel at everything he gets away with. (And to see him get his comeuppance, although I personally find that Richard's actual downfall drags a bi...more

like 1 like

· see review

Jan 23, 2009

Ikonopeiston rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: ricardian, kindle

It has been a long time since I read this play and I had forgotten how backwards Shakespeare got the facts - for dramatic purposes or political, I do not know. Clarence as the poor innocent loyal lamb!!

Those who criticize the Ricardians for nearly deifying Richard should take a closer look at how More and Shakespeare, amongst other, handled the sons of Edward IV. Never have two young boys been more dazzlingly good and beautiful, meek and Christ-like. Bah!

I was unable...more

· see review

Mar 03, 2010

Max rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: 2010, plays, shakespeare

Richard III elevates itself higher than the previous installments in the first tetralogy precisely because it escapes the binding vise of history. The Richard that Shakespeare gives us is an echo of history's Richard, but he's informed more by Marlowe's Barabas (the titular Jew of Malta), as Harold Bloom would have us know. He's a fascinating character (even if essentially Marlovian), and his machinations rise above the play he's trapped in. In reality, Henry VII likely disposed of the York p...moreRichard III elevates itself higher than the previous installments in the first tetralogy precisely because it escapes the binding vise of history. The Richard that Shakespeare gives us is an echo of history's Richard, but he's informed more by Marlowe's Barabas (the titular Jew of Malta), as Harold Bloom would have us know. He's a fascinating character (even if essentially Marlovian), and his machinations rise above the play he's trapped in. In reality, Henry VII likely disposed of the York princes, but Shakespeare ascribes that vile act to Richard. In his opening soliloquy ("now is the winter of our discontent...") he muses brilliantly on his deformed nature, pulling himself together, rising up to be the greatest villain he can possibly be. It's sport, and for Richard it's the only way he can salvage his life. He must be great, and if he can't be greatly good, he must be greatly evil. Two scenes, mirrors of each other, I think surpass the rest of the play. Richard seduces the Lady Anne for his wife in front of her father's coffin. He's killed two of her kin, and the two have this epic sort of pas de deux, Richard feigning genuine remorse and devotion ("I killed them out of love for you, baby" (not verbatim)), Anne reacting with revulsion. And yet he persists. And wins her. The scene is an actor's greatest challenge, a testament to the moral difficulty of playing a character like Richard. Like Aaron the Moor and Iago, he's a great villain. That scene, and its later mirror represent a more mature dramatic instinct for Shakespeare. The scenes play themselves out, long verbal battles, totally gripping, at odds with the weak structure of the Henry VI plays, which zipped frantically between action and set pieces and revelation. Richard III doesn't altogether live up to the promise of those more mature scenes, but you can feel Shakespeare growing. Richard III is a great dramatic character in that he escapes his historical trappings. Shakespeare makes him into something of his own. Even if he's borrowing from Marlowe.(less)

· see review

Jun 25, 2009

Olivia rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: shakespeare-summer

This is the first real disappointment of my Shakespeare Summer. I've never seen this in performance, but I saw the Ian McKellan movie in high school and it was oodles of fun. I'm thinking this play may only work in performance; on the page it is limp, silly, and anticlimactic.

I found Richard funny at times, but his humor is monochromatic, mostly just ironical flattery with a, erm, grave double meaning. An actor like McKellan may be able to find nuances here that aren't in the text, b...moreThis is the first real disappointment of my Shakespeare Summer. I've never seen this in performance, but I saw the Ian McKellan movie in high school and it was oodles of fun. I'm thinking this play may only work in performance; on the page it is limp, silly, and anticlimactic.

I found Richard funny at times, but his humor is monochromatic, mostly just ironical flattery with a, erm, grave double meaning. An actor like McKellan may be able to find nuances here that aren't in the text, but on its own this really reads, well, like a script. Richard's last minute doubt-fueled dreams and despairing repentance felt more obligatory than earned, and even this reversal didn't have the kind of depth and nuance of, say, Richard II's agonized self-discovery. Meanwhile Richard III's villainy is equally feeble - he's just so blatant, so obvious, that other characters' descriptions of his fair speech and crocodile tears seem to be about some other person who rarely appears on stage. In Henry VI Part III, Richard's ambition was genuinely scary, his disdain for human values so extreme that even amongst all the many red-and-white-rose butchers, he stands apart: grotesque, dishonorable, and happy. While his enemies recognize Richard's evil - particularly prophetic Henry in the Tower - his friends genuinely trust him and Richard gives them every reason to continue doing so. But in R3 he has nothing but stooges, who trust him for reasons I cannot fathom and then quickly die. It just doesn't work.

I'm intrigued by the odd reversal that as soon as Richard achieves his royal goal, he is revealed to be profoundly bad at it - easily flustered, bombastic, unlikable and openly cruel. Did all of his suavity and guile get used up by his conspiracies? Why is he suddenly so incompetent? In a better play this could have been interesting, but here it was just inexplicable.

All this being said, I loved the book-ended seduction scenes of Anne and Elizabeth. Heart-stopping drama from start to finish: that Richard has the gall to try to win them, that he keeps on with it even through the showers of bile, and that in the end he succeeds. But Anne and Elizabeth are both interesting enough to endow their acquiescences with exciting ambiguity - I finished these scenes not knowing precisely what had happened, what Richard had achieved, but feeling absolutely thrilled by this nebulousness. His misogyny towards both women is turned on its head, his blindness exposed - he traps his prey, but despite his boasting, he doesn't understand women one jot. Anne is virtuous to a fault - and fierce! - and I felt she only weds Richard to spare some other poor woman from having to endure him. Meanwhile Elizabeth's unflappable egotism, while frustrating at the beginning of the play, makes her all the more unlikely to give Richard what he wants; her surrender, when it comes, seems more suspect and ironical than any of Richard's celebrated pronouncements. Both women are distinct and believable people, whereas Richard's "complexity" is a joke. (less)

like 1 like

· see review

Dec 28, 2011

Justin Evans rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: poetry-and-drama

Am I the only person who thinks Richard is kind of sympathetic? Seriously, *every* other person in the play is a moron. I've never been comfortable with Nietzsche's whole 'the weak gang up to ruin the world by undermining the strong' nonsense, but as an analysis of this book? Pretty good. Look, everyone in this play is morally repulsive. The difference between them and RIII is that the king's much smarter. He moves the pieces around the board pretty well. And for that he's the greatest villain t...more

· see review

Nov 08, 2011

Matt rated it

· review of another edition

Proudly manipulative while obsessively self-loathing, Shakespeare’s Richard III is a portrait of the perverse. One watches Richard sacrifice everything and everyone in pursuit of power. There is no purpose to his pursuit except to deprive anyone else of that power. He is depravity personified.

He is what makes this play brilliant.

In some twisted way, we pity Richard. His physical deformity and sense of isolation evoke compassion. The tragedy in this play is that Richard o...more

· see review

Feb 16, 2011

Steven rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: blog-related, classic, drama, english

Excerpt from my blog recap of Richard III:
"Richard III is a strange, but fascinating play. It’s all about murder and one man’s bloodlust and quest for the crown. I was a little surprised to find that, with the exception of Richard’s own at the end (this is a history, so I’m not claiming spoilers), all of the murders happen off stage. Odd, right? I can’t say I’m disappointed as the murders include both women and children. I’m sure this would have been far too gruesome for the Elizabetha...more

· see review

Jan 22, 2012

Tom rated it

· review of another edition

Richard III was probably the first of Shakespeare's really good plays. It's not quite a great play, and this is perhaps due for me more to the fact that I am not as well acquainted with the various figures of the War of the Roses as an American, and further, it is Part 4 of a set of plays. This aside, the play shows a brilliant view of unadulterated villainy, as Richard states from the very beginning he is a bad man and intends to get what he wants using a bad man's methods. Now, Shakespeare ...more

· see review

Oct 02, 2011

Zarakoda rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: books-i-own

As Shakespeare's fourth play, Richard III appears much more "restricted" in content and less thought-provoking than the famous playwright's later works. This also comes about due to the formal nature of the piece, I suppose, but one reading this play can certainly tell Shakespeare was developING as a writer and person and not fully developed. Whereas later plays often question values (even if the conclusion seems to support tradition or the like), there is little questioning in Richa...moreAs Shakespeare's fourth play, Richard III appears much more "restricted" in content and less thought-provoking than the famous playwright's later works. This also comes about due to the formal nature of the piece, I suppose, but one reading this play can certainly tell Shakespeare was developING as a writer and person and not fully developed. Whereas later plays often question values (even if the conclusion seems to support tradition or the like), there is little questioning in Richard III. Basically, Richard of Gloucester is an inherently evil, malformed character who murders off other members of the corrupt political factions in his era. A very, very political book - Shakespeare clearly is writing this to support Queen Elizabeth, last in line of the Tudors. Amazing how the Yorkist ghosts at the end of the play so heavily endorse Richmond (Henry Tudor) to step onto the throne and take control as part of God's will! The point of this play: to legitimize the Tudor line. And Shakespeare has absolutely no problem sucking up to Queen Elizabeth and giving her what she wants.

That being said, reading the play for that sort of political analysis is intriguing - not to mention Richard III is a great Shakespearian villain. Richard might be very one-sided - Shakespeare sort of makes him a tragic, pathetic character at the end, but even then an aura of evil continues to emanate from him - NEVERTHELESS, Richard's masterful manipulation of language and usage of double-meanings certainly makes the text worthwhile to read. Again, I would not put the text as clever as some of Shakespeare's later works... but not a bad play.

As far as recommending this, DO NOT READ IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO GET INTO ENGLISH HISTORY! This play is very confusing with its large cast of characters who are all very closely related to each other via family ties. It takes some time to sort out the factions if one is not familiar with the Lancaster and York factions. However, for those who do not mind research, this book is an interesting read and study. Not a favorite Shakespeare, but it's hardly awful. I mean, it's Shakespeare for crying out loud. And maybe some people don't like him, but that doesn't make his writing any less genius.(less)

· see review

Aug 31, 2011

Etta Mcquade rated it

· review of another edition

Although I had read the play 50 years ago, I didn't remember that Richard's opening line was, "Now is the winter of our discontent." Adding to the line's fame was John Steinbeck and his book with the same title. Another famous line from Richard III--A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse! Most of the commentaries I had read say that Richard was not the villian Shakespeare makes him out to be. For instance, it is spectulation that he murdered the young sons of King Edward IV. R...more

like 1 like

· see review

Sep 13, 2010

Nicholas Armstrong rated it

· review of another edition

I'm not really a fan of Shakespeare. If this discredits me in the eyes of anyone then I think that is rather shallow, because the reasons I have I feel are very valid, while I maintain that the reasons others love him are valid as well. That said, this, like many Shakespearean works, is kind of silly.

I understand this is a history so that it actually happened, I'm a little skeptical that it happened in exactly this way, which I think most would agree with. Julius Caesar is a fun read...moreI'm not really a fan of Shakespeare. If this discredits me in the eyes of anyone then I think that is rather shallow, because the reasons I have I feel are very valid, while I maintain that the reasons others love him are valid as well. That said, this, like many Shakespearean works, is kind of silly.

I understand this is a history so that it actually happened, I'm a little skeptical that it happened in exactly this way, which I think most would agree with. Julius Caesar is a fun read but not the most historically accurate. Point being, Richard is a ridiculous character and I find how women are represented as rather offensive. Lady Anne is the most shallow, pathetic character in this entire novel but that isn't saying much for the other women. As opposed to other strong women -- Katherine in Taming of the Shrew -- these women more or less fall at the hands of the men in helpless fetal positions.

Then there's how Richard comes into power; it isn't crafty in the slightest. The guy essentially smashes it all with a big mallet he's so subtle. He gets Hastings killed by saying, look, I'm crippled, they did it. Oh? You don't agree? Kill him! Despite the fact he's been crippled his whole life, despite the fact that Hastings basically said, 'ummm' and was killed for it. The whole thing is a ludicrous farce.

While I'm on the subject, why is "a horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!" such a revered remembered quote? This play has none of the depth of Hamlet, none of the character insight and plays on words (well some, but they're weak) yet we chose this to be remembered. What great insight does this quote show us? That he has fallen so far that he wants a horse? That it is justice that the one thing he has always wanted (the kingdom) he would sacrifice for a simple horse? Here's the thing, that's all crap. He's saying that because he wants a goddamn horse. He's in the middle of a battle trying to kill Richmond and being on a horse raises his odds of surviving exponentially. He wants a horse. That's it. Get over it people.

I'd rather have just read the actual history of this than read the long, drawling rhetoric of Richard the III. Bleh.(less)

· see review

Apr 22, 2009

Brian rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: british-lit, shakespeare, philosophical

This easily ranks as one of my top 5 favorite Shakespeare plays (although I'm not quite sure what the other four are), as it deals with the persistence of the human conscience even in the path of the utmost villainy. This mostly occurs in the person of Richard III, one of the most capable villains I've encountered in the bard of Avon, but the problem is even present in the hired murderers employed by Richard. Naturally deformed, Richard, Earl of Gloucester, must use his wit (both of speech and o...more

· see review

Jul 28, 2011

Phil rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: drama

Richard III is somewhat interesting for me; this is the first time I've read it, but I saw it performed at the Kennedy Center in Arabic. I don't actually speak Arabic, which made it a bit tough to follow along, but they had LCDed subtitles giving enough of a translation to generally get the gist of the plot.

My friend, a Shakespearean, said to me that this play is quite dull except that Richard is such a compellingly villianous character. I'm not sure I completely agree, though the play definitel...more

· see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 448 449 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend it | Stats | Recent status updates

combine
Other Editions (188)

More editions...

Genres

Plays

386 users

Classics

381 users

Drama

222 users

Plays > Theatre

58 users

Literature

43 users

Historical Fiction

36 users

Academic > School

33 users

Poetry

30 users

European Literature > British Literature

26 users

Academic > College

17 users

See top shelves...

Readers Also Enjoyed

About William Shakespeare

William Shakespeare (baptised 26 April 1564) was an English poet and playwright, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "The Bard"). His surviving works consist of 38 plays, 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, and several other poems. Hi...moreWilliam Shakespeare (baptised 26 April 1564) was an English poet and playwright, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "The Bard"). His surviving works consist of 38 plays, 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, and several other poems. His plays have been translated into every major living language, and are performed more often than those of any other playwright.

Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon. At the age of 18 he married Anne Hathaway, who bore him three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Between 1585 and 1592 he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part owner of the playing company the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men. He appears to have retired to Stratford around 1613, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive, and there has been considerable speculation about such matters as his sexuality, religious beliefs, and whether the works attributed to him were written by others.

Shakespeare produced most of his known work between 1590 and 1613. His early plays were mainly comedies and histories, genres he raised to the peak of sophistication and artistry by the end of the sixteenth century. Next he wrote mainly tragedies until about 1608, including Hamlet, King Lear, and Macbeth, considered some of the finest examples in the English language. In his last phase, he wrote tragicomedies, also known as romances, and collaborated with other playwrights. Many of his plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime, and in 1623, two of his former theatrical colleagues published the First Folio, a collected edition of his dramatic works that included all but two of the plays now recognised as Shakespeare's.

Shakespeare was a respected poet and playwright in his own day, but his reputation did not rise to its present heights until the nineteenth century. The Romantics, in particular, acclaimed Shakespeare's genius, and the Victorians hero-worshipped Shakespeare with a reverence that George Bernard Shaw called "bardolatry". In the twentieth century, his work was repeatedly adopted and rediscovered by new movements in scholarship and performance. His plays remain highly popular today and are consistently performed and reinterpreted in diverse cultural and political contexts throughout the world.
(less)

More about William Shakespeare...

Books by William Shakespeare

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Pin It

Trivia About The Tragical Hist...

29 trivia questions

More quizzes & trivia...

Quotes from Richard III

“Dispute not with her: she is lunatic.” — 526 people liked it

“So wise so young, they say, do never live long.” — 125 people liked it

More quotes…

Groups That Shelved Richard III

Tudor History Lovers

1347 members

last activity 51 minutes ago

shelf: read

Exceptional Books

1229 members

last activity 8 hours, 30 min ago

shelf: read

Shakespeare Fans

453 members

last activity Jan 28, 2012 03:30pm

shelf: read

title link	preview: Richard III
avg rating	preview: Richard III Goodreads rating: 3.86 (10026 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2363679.Richard_III?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1320555742m/2363679.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2363679.Richard_III?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Richard III by William Shakespeare[/url]

Richard III (Modern Library Classics)

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Readers Also Enjoyed

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website