Free Essays on Richard III

Josephine Tey’s The Daughter of Time is the literary cousin of Oliver Stone’s film â€Å"JFK.† Both are works of fiction meant to turn historically accepted events on their heads. In â€Å"JFK† Kevin Costner’s character tries to disprove that Oswald killed the president; Grant thinks Richard III an innocent man. Both of these works make the original, accepted story of what ‘really’ happened sound preposterous. By the time all three hours of â€Å"JFK† were over I felt sorry for Oswald, I thought there was a conspiracy and hated Tommy Lee Jones even more. I took Oliver Stone’s word over what my text books told me. The same story proved true when I finished reading The Daughter of Time. If anything, both of these works definitely bring valid points to the forefront, and make one think about other possibilities rather than accepting what we are fed in our text books. Tey definitely convinced me that Richard III did no t kill his nephews and his character blackened by Henry Tudor. My opinion of Richard being innocent has a lot to do with Grant’s comment about ‘historians not being very interested in psychology.’ As described in TDOT, Richard had known the boys since their births and saw them as people; to Henry they were symbols. It’s much easier to wipe out a symbol than a person. Also, TDOT brings up several other ‘common sense’ points against Richard’s villainy. How could Tyrrell retrieve the keys to the Tower for one night, sneak in unnoticed, smother two young boys, sneak out, and replace the keys? If he was so well known in that day he could not have gone unnoticed. Upon his execution why was his confession of the murder not recorded? Tey has convinced me that Henry Tudor was actually the villain, but imposed all of these characteristics and images on Richard to better his reign and reputation. It is also slightly more scandalous. †The threats to the Tudor dynasty continued from within and fr... Free Essays on Richard III Free Essays on Richard III Tudor propaganda created a monster and named him Richard. His odious career began before birth, where he skulked in his mother’s womb for two years. Born with teeth and shoulder-length hair, he quickly grew into a misshapen figure whose hunchback and withered arm mirrored his evil heart. He murdered all who stood in his way and pursued a vendetta against his sister-in-law Elizabeth Woodville and her ambitious brothers. It was this monster, a fiction generated by Tudor historians to legitimise the reign of Henry VII and the Tudor dynasty, which fired Shakespeare’s imagination. What sort of play did Shakespeare create? One way of thinking about the drama is to see it as Shakespeare’s tale of the rise and fall of a man who will stop at nothing to become king. It is a reminder of the medieval idea of the Wheel of Fortune and the blind goddess Fortuna. That rise–fall pattern is clearly seen in King Richard III. In the first three acts a charismatic Richard successfully removes anyone who stands in his way to kingship. Playing a variety of roles with malicious enjoyment, he is finally offered the crown. Yet this moment of greatest triumph heralds his downturn in fortune. Within this structure, with its multiplicity of characters and episodes, Richard is always at the centre of attention, even when not on stage. There is no subplot or conventional romantic interest, for all events are part of Richard’s rise and fall. The play is a searching examination of power politics, but it is also an intense exploration of the nature of crime and punishment, as individuals are forced to confront past deeds. Some critics see the play as Shakespeare’s dramatic interrogation of the Tudor myth (see pages 58 and 90), the final working out of the consequences of the seizure of the throne by Henry IV over eighty years before the play opens. Those events are dramatised in the plays that precede King Richard III. What foll... Free Essays on Richard III Josephine Tey’s The Daughter of Time is the literary cousin of Oliver Stone’s film â€Å"JFK.† Both are works of fiction meant to turn historically accepted events on their heads. In â€Å"JFK† Kevin Costner’s character tries to disprove that Oswald killed the president; Grant thinks Richard III an innocent man. Both of these works make the original, accepted story of what ‘really’ happened sound preposterous. By the time all three hours of â€Å"JFK† were over I felt sorry for Oswald, I thought there was a conspiracy and hated Tommy Lee Jones even more. I took Oliver Stone’s word over what my text books told me. The same story proved true when I finished reading The Daughter of Time. If anything, both of these works definitely bring valid points to the forefront, and make one think about other possibilities rather than accepting what we are fed in our text books. Tey definitely convinced me that Richard III did no t kill his nephews and his character blackened by Henry Tudor. My opinion of Richard being innocent has a lot to do with Grant’s comment about ‘historians not being very interested in psychology.’ As described in TDOT, Richard had known the boys since their births and saw them as people; to Henry they were symbols. It’s much easier to wipe out a symbol than a person. Also, TDOT brings up several other ‘common sense’ points against Richard’s villainy. How could Tyrrell retrieve the keys to the Tower for one night, sneak in unnoticed, smother two young boys, sneak out, and replace the keys? If he was so well known in that day he could not have gone unnoticed. Upon his execution why was his confession of the murder not recorded? Tey has convinced me that Henry Tudor was actually the villain, but imposed all of these characteristics and images on Richard to better his reign and reputation. It is also slightly more scandalous. †The threats to the Tudor dynasty continued from within and fr...