Henry IV, Part 1

I only have to read part one for my class, but I think I'll read part two, too, in due course. Falstaff is amusing, and I rather enjoy Hal, too. I preferred it to Richard II, I think.

No need to say that I loved the language and thought it'd be even better on the stage. That's just Shakespeare for you.

(Why didn't I used to like Shakespeare? Probably because I repeatedly got Romeo & Juliet shoved down my throat, and his comedies aren't to my taste.) ( )

Saw. ( )

Saw. ( )

David Scott Kastan's lucid exploration of the remarkable richness and ambitious design of 'King Henry IV Part I' reveals the play to be almost a treatise on the central relationship between value and political authority.

Another great one! If I remember right, the second part of Henry IV is not as great...I'll have to kinda slog through it on my way to Henry V, which at this point is like having sex with your wife. Henry V, not slogging through 2 Henry IV, I mean. I've read Henry V like fifty times and seen the movie at least five - my mom really liked that thing. That and Amadeus. Remember back when VCRs were for watching old movies instead of new ones? ("No, because I'm not a million years old like you." "Get off my lawn.") Anyway, after thinking about it for six and a half sentences, the sex / Henry V comparison doesn't make any sense, so never mind.

I found myself losing focus sometimes during 1 Henry IV, and I'm not sure whether it was the context - I had little free time this weekend and I found myself reading it in small bites, sometimes while the wife watched cooking reality shows. Not a great way to read Shakespeare - or maybe it was that it's been a while since I read a bunch of Shakespeare in quick succession, and my Shakespeare muscles have gone all flabby. We'll see.

Where Richard II was very faithful to the actual history, Shakespeare departs more readily from the strict truth of things in the Henry IV plays. He throws a lot more stuff in from non-historical characters, Falstaff being the obvious one, possibly because he needs some padding to make this into two different plays; I'm not sure why he did two plays, but maybe I'll get it more after the second one. (I've read all this before, but it's been a while so I don't remember how 2 Henry IV ends.) The dramatic arc in this first part works perfectly, anyway; the climactic (and completely fabricated) duel between the young Henry V and Hotspur makes a great Act V.

Interesting, by the way, that Henry V is at least co-lead with Henry IV in this first part, and he's clearly the main character in the second. Just sayin'. I wonder whether we'd see these plays differently if 2 Henry IV had been called 1 Henry V. I think Henry IV gets less attention than Henry V in part because it's two plays, which makes people more anxious about reading them. More commitment, y'know? But if you take 1 Henry IV on its own...well, it's not as good as Richard II, but it's very good.

I'm rambling badly, aren't I? Truth is I have work to do and I don't want to do it. But okay, I should get to it. See you soon for 2 Henry IV.

Saccio's book, by the way, is great. Fun to read, really informative. My pattern has been to read the chapter about the play, then the play, then my Riverside Shakespeare's intro to the play; it's working out nicely. There's a lot of flipping between books involved, though; I'm going to buy a physical copy of Saccio today so I can reference it better. Paging around on a Kindle totally sucks. ( )