#fyi this is not a reference to the shakespeare play

[the-casbah-way]

been having brutus thoughts recently

[thisiswheregeniuslies]

Richard, what are you doing in my book

[writingwithcolor]

I'm considering making Olivia in my modernized comic of Twelfth Night a black girl. However, her character is intelligent but foolish, somewhat obsessive over the protag, considered the most beautiful girl around, and she is dealing with the death of her cousin. Do these qualities fall into any harmful stereotypes I should avoid?

Black heroine is foolish, obsessive, and dealing with loss

I'm not familiar with the Twelfth Night comic, but on a search, the characters appear to be in high school, so teenagers. Based on that, plus on its face, these traits don't read as problematic to me. I will explore areas where these traits can get dicey, though.

Infantilization. sacrifice and dealing with death

Be mindful of infantilization when it comes to her being portrayed as “intelligent but foolish.” Infantilization commonly affects Black people, where others downplay their capabilities and treats them in a condescending, child-like way. Watch out for ableism as a whole, really - what does foolish mean in the context of this character?

With the obsession aspect, I’m not overly concerned - I had my handful of crushes back in the day! Plus, it’s fine to give your Black characters a variety of characteristics. For this one, I'd keep an eye out for sacrificial traits. You can be obsessed without being willing to end your life for someone, especially without having a real relationship with them. 

As for the death of her cousin, it's natural to lose people and grieve, of course. 

Depending on the deceased's character race, gender and other identities, please add more than one of this character of that background. That way, you don't have the only, say, gay young Black man, as a dead character. 

Watch out for stereotypes when it comes to how this character dies, too. Depending on the circumstances, I'd either avoid stereotypical deaths (e.g. sacrificial negro) or make a social commentary out of it that's addressed in the narrative (e.g. death by violence, police brutality, etc.), which aren't light matters. 

If this isn't something you want to address, pick a death that doesn't encroach on these areas.

I hope this helps!

Mod Colette

Commentary

tricksypixie

Fyi, I believe the asker is referring to their making a comic modernizing twelfth night, the Shakespeare play. Not sure if the playtext itself contains reference to characters’ ages, but that character doesn’t have an established age (compared to, say, the old knight in the play).

missavund

If its based on Shakespears Twelfth night then honestly its not a lot of things that hasnt been done. All-girls cast, all-boys cast, probably all-black cast and mixed cast so dont worry about that. Maybe not have Olivia be the only black person though

[inventors-fair]

Second Spellings: Runners-Up ~

Our runners-up this week are @bergdg, @helloijustreadyourpost, and @hypexion!

@bergdg — The Great Conjuration

I don't really know where blue and green became the shapeshifteryest of shapeshifter colors (or rather, I get the gist because blue = mutability and green = nature). When you have these together, though, you get a card like this which is really damn sweet. This card obviously puts a massive target on your back, but if you go fast enough, you can ensure that the power behind your creatures can swing fully and completely. Or rather, that you have at least one explosive turn. Having all the cards be exiled can be a feel-bad, but there are great ways to exploit this and even better ways that this card is just plain fun.

For example: naming Eldrazi allows you to cast Emrakul off a Blisterpod. Honestly, do I need to name any other examples after that? I think that the only major revision I would make would be for the last ability to say "You may cast any number of cards exiled with ~ this turn without paying their mana costs." I'm not sure where you got the "one or more" wording from, but hey, that's a small issue for such a fun card. It's extremely narrow and more often than not feels like it would be a glass cannon—so yeah, perfectly reasonable for what the conjuration is implying, right? Side note: amazing art skills there. The mood conveys the gist conveys the extremity.

@helloijustreadyourpost — Sky Dancer

I like the Shakespeare reference in the flavor text, and I think it speaks to some kind of faerie perspective that's not quite translatable to human thought—or at least that feels like the intention, the way that the fae see the world. That is to say, I like both the simplicity and the ambiguity. It's actually tied with the effect for the card, which is a potentially quite powerful effect at common! I can't think of any specific effects with which it's broken, at least not at the moment.

So what you have is the ability to swing in with your fliers and then be on the defense, plus if you have any flash synergy you can utilize that to make combat harder for your opponents. All checks out. Cast triggers at common aren't the easiest to grok, but at the same time, this effect doesn't use too much complex space because of no inherent tap ability; I'm thinking of how my students sometimes get juked out with weird Thermo-Alchemist triggers, y'know. By itself, it's a card that does just what Faeries want to do at common, and I think that the only possible change I'd make would be to make it a 1/2, and even that's negligible. Solid common design!

@hypexion — Distortion Skitterer

As an uncommon? You're treading hazardous ground... But, it's a seven-mana 4/4 so that's honestly not so bad. Making additional 4/4s with trample is pretty nasty and you do get one on cast, but holy crap, that's still really fun to play, and fairly limiting all things considered. The amount of times that this would've come up in OGW limited would be pretty little, which is reasonable, but getting two of them or getting just one trigger off would be pretty nasty. Considering that MH3 is going to have even more? Wow. I think that the double-C is quite reasonable for the setup.

Honestly this card speaks for itself—the power level is comparable to the more powerful uncommons of its era, it's an Eldrazi that makes more Eldrazi, and you've got a pretty reasonable wording to show how nuts it can be. FYI, the cast trigger for other spells would actually be its own thing, e.g. "When you cast this spell and whenever you cast a spell with {C} in its mana cost..." I believe you don't have to specify "on the battlefield" because, like Cityscape Leveler, it implies the zone with the wording on the trigger. That said, it's fairly complex, so I understand if things got finicky. Flavor text is a solid B+, too! Just remember to put the period inside the quotation marks. I guess a runner-up flavor would've been Zurdi saying that they missed the scute bugs.

Commentary soon! @abelzumi

[lamortexiii]

Cryptic Mystic: Intelligence, Perception, & Originality

Intelligence, Perception, & Originality: Blaise Pascal (1670/1961), the great French philosopher and mathematician wrote, “The more intelligence one has, the more people one finds original. Commonplace people see no difference between men.” Does intelligence have anything to do with how much one can see/feel? Why do we hold certain people to higher standards than others? Does originality even exist?? Well, I may not have all of the definitive answers, but I can speculate and provide you with some of the important information that is out there. As I always say, in the end, you decide what you believe. 

We will start with some basic definitions, just so we are all on the same page as to what we are talking about specifically within this month’s Cryptic Mystic blog. I do this because we may all have different ideas as to what something may be; our perceptions may be different. For this blog, I feel definitions are crucial to the reader having a solid understanding of the full content - not because I believe the reader to be stupid (FYI).

We will begin by defining intelligence. Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving. A more broad definition: intelligence is the ability to perceive and retain information as knowledge to be used towards an individual’s behaviors and how one interacts within a situation or environment. Humans are most often the subjects of intelligence testing, but animals and plants have also been subjected to this research despite some believing animals and plants do not possess intelligence. There is another type of intelligence called artificial intelligence that refers to the intelligence found within computers and other electronic devices and machines. 

Next, let’s look at the definition of perception. Perception (from the Latin perceptio, meaning gathering or receiving) is the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information to represent and understand the presented information or environment. Perception begins with a stimulus that triggers our body’s sensory system. This information then travels from the input of where the sensory phenomena took place (e.g. light coming through the eye) to the brain, which processes this information. The way your brain processes this information and the way you react to the stimuli around you is all thanks to perception. 

Lastly, we will define originality. This definition is high up on the debate scale, as many believe true originality does not exist. This is due in part to the lack of boundaries between items/works that are derived from others; things become cyclical. Originality is commonly known as the aspect of created or invented works as being something new. Any reproductions, clones, forgeries, or derivative works would not be considered original (to an extent). Something that is considered original is believed to not be derived or copied from someone else’s work. Originality is unique, fresh, and new. Many famous artists, including Shakespeare, do not claim to be 100% original but to have drawn off the work of their predecessors. The United States did not even begin to harness the concept of originality until the 18th century. 

Now that we’ve got that out of the way, we can get into the beans and cornbread of what this blog is actually about. In knowing these definitions, what do you think about the original questions posited above at the beginning of the blog? How does intelligence shape the way we feel and see the world around us? Why do we hold certain people to higher standards than others (e.g. famous individuals)? Are higher powers at play or are our intelligence, perception, and abilities purely destiny from birth? Does originality even exist? Think about those questions and what you believe at this moment, for your beliefs may change by the end of the blog. Write your beliefs down now if you’d like to engage in this as an activity for yourself.

How does intelligence shape the way that we feel and see the world around us? Our brains are the epicenter of our existence. The intellectual abilities that we are born with do shape our perception of the world around us and ultimately how we live our lives. Now, knowledge can always be acquired, and there are outliers within every scenario, so do keep this in mind - I do not dispute those facts. Our intelligence and cognition help us to learn, form concepts, understand things, apply logic and reasoning, and so many more things. Our intelligence breeds the way we see the world around us, and thus how we form opinions and choose to interact with other people and the environments around us. We are all on different levels of processing and understanding - some more similar than others (those who are similar “click” or “have a connection” while those who are opposite tend to not “click” or have those same connections very often at all). 

Have you ever encountered a situation where you just didn’t understand the way someone was thinking, and it frustrated the hell out of you? I bet it’s safe to say that you have. I know I have - several times throughout my life. This is because you and that individual were operating on different frequencies. You possessed different ways of seeing the world, different ways of understanding, different ways of communicating, different levels of intelligence. All of these things are interconnected. I know when most people think of intelligence, they think of how smart someone is. However, intelligence is far more than that. Intelligence is said to be purely natural - something you are born with. While there are opportunities in life to learn so many things and strengthen your cognitive processes, at the end of the day you are who you are. You can’t learn intelligence - it is something you are born with. However, you can change your brain structure through learning and engaging with others and the environments around you. This is a huge conversation for another blog, but the point is - you can change your brain structure. So, the big question becomes, if you can change your brain structure, can you alter/change your intelligence?...

Why do we hold certain people to higher standards than others (e.g. famous individuals)? Intelligence produces our perception. Part of this perception is how we see others and the world around us. While some famous individuals may have a special talent, other famous individuals don’t have any talents. For every famous person who has a special talent, there are thousands (if not millions) of other individuals around the world who hold the same talent - and some may even have a higher skill set! Why do we put famous people on a pedestal when they are people just like us? They were born with the same abilities as many of us. There isn’t much that makes a famous person any different from you, except the fact that they’re famous - and of course (for most of us) they have A LOT more money than we do. But what does money have to do with anything? Can we then say that is the reason we put so many famous people on a pedestal - is it money? Do you idolize your favorite musician for their actual musical talents or is it something else? What about the person down the street who is equally as talented who gets no attention? I know this answer may look different for all of you, but I want you to think about what your answer would be if we were having this conversation, or if you were having this conversation with someone else. Now, take this example and flip it to something more day-to-day. Why do you put certain family members or friends on a pedestal when compared to others around you? Is it about your relationship with those individuals? Do they do something for you that benefits you? Is there a reciprocal give-and-take relationship to where both parties are benefitted? Is it all about you and that’s how you like it? Can you run over these people and take advantage? Again, your reasoning and answers are going to look drastically different from the next person's because we are all unique individuals, but I want you to think about this as well. The hard truth is that some people do not possess the ability to distinguish realistic differences and similarities between other individuals. Some people believe that famous people are somehow better than the rest of us. Some people possess the ability to pick apart similarities and differences between others, but just don’t care. This kind of ties back into the quote mentioned at the beginning of the blog from Pascal, “The more intelligence one has, the more people one finds original. Commonplace people see no difference between men.” Do you believe this to be true? Why or why not?... What makes a famous person, your best friend, whomever you put on a pedestal and hold to higher standards - what makes this person so special; so different? Your intelligence is playing a much bigger role here than you realize. I understand this may be a lightbulb moment for some of you, and a clusterfuck of thoughts for others - and that's okay. Whatever way you are processing this is fine because it’s part of what makes you who you are - and that’s pretty cool. 

Are higher powers at play or are our intelligence, perception, and abilities purely destiny from birth? Each of us is born with unique attributes and abilities. In psychology, we call these abilities innate (born with) and learned (acquired) abilities. As I mentioned earlier, you do possess the power to change your brain through the use of the neurons within your brain. The neurons that aren’t used often eventually fade away, and the ones that are used a lot will strengthen. You can even regrow certain neurons that you lost long ago or strengthen smaller neurons that may not have been used in a while. So, the ability to change is always there. However, change can look challenging for some and isn’t as easily obtained. For the most part, how we are born and the environment that shapes us as children/adolescents are a big part of what makes us who we are today. Intelligence is a large part of how we perceive the world around us, and our abilities are a large part of how we interact with the world around us. All parts are tied into one giant working system that propels us through life. In short, much of what we possess we are born with and this ultimately guides us through life amidst the continual editing from our environment. As for a higher power, this is something personal for everyone. You may or may not believe that something is aiding you in your journey through life; guiding you as you go. You may believe in nothing. 

Based solely on my personal lived experiences I can say that I believe there is something that aids me throughout my life - what it is, I can’t be sure. However, I do not believe that this was always the case. Until my early mid-twenties, I felt lost and relied heavily on substance abuse and those around me to make my happiness. One day when I was probably at the lowest and most stressful point in my life, I met a powerful, talented, successful, dark, and mysterious man who challenged me to be better. For years I had always had a natural attraction to him when I would see his face, but getting to know him was a completely different scenario altogether. He challenged me to be the strong and powerful woman that I am today. As our relationship grew, he helped me to find my way and see what I needed to do to reach my full potential. I took his words and actions and held them close, that which I have never forgotten. I know it may sound silly, but I can’t help but wonder if some of the power he most blatantly wields still to this day has somehow been transferred to me? But maybe this power was with me all along, and he just aided in bringing it to fruition? I jokingly tell people I made a deal with the devil, but then I think to myself… maybe I did? I have found since meeting him that my entire world has changed. He is no longer a regular part of my life. Nothing bad happened between us at all, and we departed from one another on good terms. Life moved on and years have gone by. But as the years have passed, I noticed that good things would consistently happen to me; like... really good things... all of the time; things that almost seemed magical. It was almost as if those around me were under some sort of spell or mind-control. Everything that has happened to me since has been so random, but so amazing - I can’t even begin to explain the complete turnaround that my life has made. It started with small things (e.g. random free items at events, strangers paying my way, fun opportunities, an influx of compliments every time I’m in public, receiving unexpected money in the mail when I needed it). Now every chance I take ends with success - no matter how big or small. I am not saying this to sound big-headed, it’s the truth and is my reality; my new way of living I suppose. Granted, I have worked hard to get where I am, but damn have I had some sort of phenomenal luck along the way. To be clear, I still experience downtimes and unfortunate events from time to time (that’s just life) but for the most part, I have really good luck… or something else? I don’t know. I have tried to put the pieces together for years, and meeting my dear friend and departing from him seems to be a coincidental timeline. That paired with other things I have discussed in past blogs about myself, and that’s all I’ve got. No valid explanation - just more questions. But, you know me, I’m always seeking the truth and questioning everything anyway... 

Does originality even exist?? This is a tough one and I am not sure that I have the answer. Talk about a hot debate. I could sit and ponder this topic for hours - which I did when I wrote this blog. For this question, I will let you decide. I want to know what you think, so shoot me a message or drop me a comment on Instagram, Twitter, or Tumblr and let me know. I’ll post responses on social media anonymously - maybe we can come to a group consensus?! To conclude this month’s blog, I’ll share my opinion - but it is not certain. I think there is potential for someone to concoct an original idea. However, you have to ponder where these ideas come from. Did the person subconsciously remember something they saw when they were five years old, and that sparked their idea? The person could very well believe that their idea is original, not having consciously remembered the thing they saw from all those years ago. In all actuality, their idea is not original, but a product of something they saw when they were younger. It is hard to say whether our ideas are 100% original or partly made from someone else’s ideas. I believe most “originality” that we see today is a culmination of several generations of thought and invention. So then would that not be considered originality to some extent? Or does originality not exist? Again, I’ll let you decide what you believe. Take care. Until next time... 

<3 - K

Cryptic Mystic Blog by PsychVVitch @psychvvitch

www.LaMorteXiii.com

[2o2o-kit]

Shakespeare Charcters With the Same Named (part I)

I will be comparing different Shakespeare characters with the same name and giving my opinion on them and highlight favorite in blue. I will not include the History plays (including the Mark Antony plays) because that will have me comparing like 5 different Henry’s and plenty of Thomases, and last names, titles and family names don’t count either. (So no, Brutus or Messenger)

Angelo:

Measure for Measure: The antagonist of the play, yeah he demands sex from Isabella, I feel like he is in the wrong genre.

Comedy of Errors: Poor Angelo, caught in the middle of this confusing plot

Antonio🏳️‍🌈:

Merchant of Venice: Anti-Semitic, rich merchant, not cool man (but not the worst character in the play) But definitely either Gay, Ace or a bit of both

Much Ado About Nothing: Two Words: BRIAN BLESSED, may LGBTQ+ as well

Twelfth Night: Aww poor gay baby, he deserved the happiness that Merchant of Venice’s Antonio got

The Tempest: Planning a murder with his boyfriend Sebastian, I don’t have that strong of an opinion on him, I’m not a big fan of The Tempest

Two Gentlemen of Verona: Didn’t do too much, and I haven’t read that play yet.

FYI: I could do a whole post just on Antonio conspiracy theories if y’all are interested

Balthasar:

Romeo and Juliet: Just a servent, but could be cool to get more of a backstory from him

Much Ado About Nothing: He sings a song about infertility, that’s amazing

Comedy of Errors: Just a side character so I don’t have that strong opinion about him either

Merchant of Venice: Does not need to be a servant for Portia, let alone have her steal his name

Banica:

Taming of the Shrew: She is that one sister parents clearly prefer

Othello: A mistress, not too much development there

Claudio (it’s a tie):

Much Ado About Nothing: Such an interesting, gullible character. At times you are like awww he’s so in love, while other times it’s Kill Claudio

Measure For Measure: Not a pure bean, but did not have to die

Cornelius:

Hamlet: Gay for Voltemand, nuff said

Cymbeline: Probably one of the smartest characters in the play

Demetrius:

Midsummer Night’s Dream: I love plots where the love interest changes, so good for him : Rapist but gets turned into a pie, could easily be a character in Sweeney Todd

Titus Andronicus: Rapist but turned into a pie, could easily be a character in Sweeney Todd

Diana:

All’s Well That Ends Well: Just like the play she is in, very difficult to tell how likable she is

Pericles: Shakespeare references her a lot, so it’s nice to see her in a play

Emila:

Othello: THIS IS HOW YOU BUILD A CHARACTER ARC

Two Noble Kingsmen: We all wish we could look like her

The Winter’s Tale: Good for her by sticking with Hermione

Escalus:

Romeo and Juliet: In case if you don’t know, he is the prince in this play and he just wants peace ☮️

Measure for Measure: He is that one person one know who works for the Government

Gratiano:

Merchant of Venice: You know that one character you just want to punch in the face, that’s Gratiano IMO

Othello: I honestly don’t remember him, I just know he is better than Merchant of Venice Gratiano

Helen(a):

Troilus and Cressida: This b***h is the center of drama

Cymbeline: Not that much context for her

All’s Well That Enda Well: She is a female rapist, b word level as Helen from Troilus

Midsummer Night’s Dream: Deserves love that’s not just by potions

John (I’m waaaayy to lazy to list them)

Juliet (this will be controversia):

Romeo and Juliet: A Shakespearian icon, you think she is not that bright but remember she is only 13

Measure for Measure: Oh No! Got Pregnant out of wedlock! Deserved Better

Check out part II if I missed your favorite

[antique-ro-man]

Things that have happened at Much Ado About Nothing Rehearsals/While Running Lines

FYI Hero and Claudio (Me) are lesbians in this version. Claudio is called Claudia now.

-Upon being cast: “So, lesbians?” “Yeah, lesbians?”

-“Oh my god, Benedick has been a dick to Beatrice! I figured it out!”

-“THE SHIP NAME IS BE-A-DICK!”

“OH MY GOD” 

“THIS IS OFFICIAL”

“WE SHIP IT”

-Dogberry: They may be powerful, but they’re not above the law.

Don John, Claudia, and Benedick, in perfect synchronization: We’ll see about that.

-“Come hither my bitchiness”

-We refer to ourselves as a coven.

-Ending any vaguely concerning sentence about murder, relationships, etc. with “Shakespeare!”

-I carpool with Hero and as soon as we got in the car after being cast, we immediately pulled out our scripts and went through the entire play to gender swap Claudio, no questions asked.

-We decided to make Hero pan to make Don John’s plan make sense so that the scene wouldn’t end up being:

“Hero’s sleeping with another guy.”

“She’s gay.”

“Oh fuck.”

-Getting into a heated and passionate discussion about whether Shakespeare was gay or bi and that transitioned to talking about the eradication of LGBTQ+ identities in history and Ancient Greece and the Salem lesbian trials.

-Constant references to John Mulany and Monty Python

-“Hamlet is a whiny little bitch!” 

“Oh yeah, Hamlet’s a prick.”

-“Wait, what’s Measure for Measure about?”

“Oh, my sweet, summer child.”

-On Romeo and Juliet: “You know, it’s so sad being an 18-year-old fuckboy and not being able to see your 13-year-old girlfriend ‘cause you killed her cousin.”

“Oh wow, Romeo’s a jerk.”

“Yeah, but if Mercutio got murdered in front of me, I would also kill whoever did it with no remorse.”

-“What’s your favorite thing about Shakespeare?”

“The dick jokes.”

- Our director was summarizing the characters and, well, this happened: 

“Beatrice is Hero’s best friend and her bedmate. Like, they sleep together-”

Half the cast: *Places hand on their chin* Hmm...

-On Benedick’s monologue about not wanting the love of a woman: “Is he gay or is he an Incel? We’ll never know.”

I have rehearsal tomorrow and I’ll return with the chaos that no one asked for.

[kaaramel]

every shakespeare reference in wilba’s speech file (that i could find) by play

this.... this is what i choose to spend my time on

the majority are, fittingly, Hamlet quotes, but she quotes something like 20 different plays, and also the one sonnet that everyone knows, you know the one

i probably didn’t get them all? there are SO many. 

also i assigned plays from memory on a lot of them because i can’t be sitting around googling every single quote so if some are misattributed that’s why but i feel pretty confident in my shakespeare trivia

i didn’t list repeats unless they were significantly different or funny so please please don’t swan into my inbox telling me i missed one of the 9,000 “wherefore art thou”s

if you don’t know what the original quote is then i’d be happy to give context. my original intention was to do that but that was 200+ lines of misquoted shakespeare ago

yeah..

yeah, i spent like two hours on this

this isn’t in any kind of order or nice formatting really, just fyi, because i’ve already spent two hours on it

Hamlet ANNOUNCE_NOSLEEPONFIRE = "WILBA DOTH FWOOSH TOO MUCH, METHINKS!" MANDRAKE = PICKED = "IT DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH, METHINKS" PIGMAN_STOREOWNER = "HER HAIR DOTH TOO MUCH, METHINKS" ..doth what wilba

ANNOUNCE_MORETREASURE = "MORE THINGS IN CHESTS 'N EARTH!"

ANNOUNCE_CHARLIE_ATTACK = "WHAT ROGUE AND PEASANT SLAVE AM YOU!" PEAGAWK = GENERIC = "WHAT A ROGUE AND PEASANT SLAVE AM EYE-BIRD!"

SPOILED = "SOMETHING ROTTEN IN WILBA TUM TUMS" ROTTENEGG = "MMMM...SOMETHING ROTTEN" WARN = "SOMETHING ROTTEN IN STATE OF WILBA HEAD"

ANNOUNCE_BEES = "IS BEE OR NAUGHT IS BEE?" WORMHOLE_LIMITED = "T'WILL BE OR NAUGHT T'WILL BE?" BACONEGGS = "TO EAT OR NOT TO EAT?" BEE = HELD = "TWO BEES? NOPE, NOT TWO BEES" PUMPKINCOOKIE = "COOKIE OR NOT COOKIE" JUNGLETREESEED = GENERIC = "TO PLANT OR NOT TO PLANT" TUBER_CROP = "TUBER, OR NAUGHT TUBER"

ANNOUNCE_HOT = "WILBA AM TOO MUCH I' THE SUN" DRYINGINRAIN = "IT TOO MUCH I' THE RAINS"

WILDBORE = "LITTLE MORE THAN KIN, LESS THAN KINDA" LEATHER = "LITTLE MORE THAN SKIN AND LESS THAN HIDE"

RESURRECTIONSTONE = "IS'T TICKET BACK FROM UNDISCOVERE'D COUNTRY" TUMBLEWEED = "THE UNDISCOVER'D RUNT TREE"

DUNGBEETLE = DEAD = "HAS'T SHUFFLED OFF MORTAL PLOP BALL" CHICKEN = DEAD = "WADDL'D OFF THIS MORTAL COIL" JELLYFISH_DEAD = "HATH DEPARTED MORTAL COIL"

ROWBOAT = "THE ROWS OF OUTRAGEOUS FORTUNE" SLOTMACHINE = "HATH OUTRAGEOUS FORTUNE"

ARMORSEASHELL = "WILBA READY FOR SEA OF TROUBLES" BOATCANNON = "WILBA TAKE ARMS AGAINST SEA OF TROUBLES" ENCRUSTEDBOAT = "WILBA MAKE ARMOR AGAINST SEA OF TROUBLES"

BEEFALO = SLEEPING = "PERCHANCE IT DREAMS?" (also for sleeping frogs) CORKBOAT = "FRAILTY, THY NAME IS'T CORK BOWL CANOE!"

GLOMMER = "AY, THERE'S A BUG" ROC_NEST_BUSH = "AY, THERE'S THE SHRUB"

BLUBBERSUIT = "TOO SOLID FLESH NAUGHT MELT"

WALRUS_TUSK = "YOUR OWN SELF BE TOOTH" SOLD = "TO MINE OWN HOUSE BE TRUE"

WHIP = "BREVITY IS'T SOUL OF WHIP"

TRAWLNET = "WHEREIN I'LL CATCH THE FISHIES OF THE SEA" (a biiig reach but it has the same meter at least as 'wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king')

DORSALFIN = "OF IN-FIN-ITE JEST" PIKO = GENERIC = "FELLOWS OF INFINITE JEST"

JELLYBUG = "MOST FOUL, STRANGE, AND UNNATURAL"

TOPHAT = "WILBA MOST EXCELLENT FANCY" PIKO_ORANGE = "OF MOST EXCELLENT FANCY TAILS" TALLBIRDEGG = "MOST EGG-CELLENT FANCIES"

WEBBERSKULL = "ALAS, POOR SPIDER" ABIGAIL = "ALAS, POOR GHOST!" BIRDCAGE = SKELETON = "ALAS, POOR BIRDY" PIGMAN = DEAD = "ALAS, POOR PIGGY!" ANCIENT_ROBOT_HEAD = "ALAS, POOR ROBOT" SKELETON_PLAYER = "ALAS POOR WILBA!!"

SCORPION = DEAD = "DEATH WILL HAS IS'T DAY"

ANIMAL_TRACK = "SWEET PRINTS!"

BUSHHAT = "THERE METHOD TO WILBA MADNESS" INSANITYROCK = ACTIVE = "THERE IS A METHOD IN'T"

Winter's Tale BEARGER = "EXIT WILBA, PURSUED BY BEARGER" FABRIC = "'TIS THE FABRIC OF MINE FOLLY'"

All's Well WALL_STONE = "WALL'S WELL THAT ENDS WELL"

Merry Wives SNAKESKIN = "IT HEART WAS MIGHTY, IT SKIN ARE WHOLE" GRASS_TALL = PICKED = "THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT"

AYLI PIGEON = GENERIC = "HEY DING A DING DING!" PANGOLDEN = "NOSE HIMSELF TO BE A FOOL"

RIII PIGTENT = "'TIS WILBA'S DISCON-TENT" now that's a stretch. STEADY = "NOW IS WINTER OF WILBA DISCONTENT" FROG_POISON = "POISON'DOUS BUNCH-BACK'D TOAD" GENERIC = "THOU LUMP OF FOUL DEFORMITY!" RUG_CATCOON = "LUMP OF FOUL DEFORMITY"

Midsummer BEE = GENERIC = "WHAT FOOLS THESE MORTAL BEES!" DAWN = "WHAT VISIONS HAS'T WILBA SEEN'D?" DUNGPILE = GENERIC = "WILBA AM SICK WHEN LOOK ON THEE"

Macbeth CATCOON = "'TIS THRICE BRIND'ED CAT" GOATMILK = "MILK O' GOATY KINDNESS" SMASHINGPOT = "OUT DAMNED POT!"

MOOSE_NESTING_GROUND = "THE STICKING PLACE" MUSSEL_FARM = STICKPLANTED = "WILBA SCREW IT TO THE STICKING PLACE" ROC_NEST_BRANCH1 = "'TIS BIG STICKING PLACE"

all PUPPETs (non-Max throned characters) = "BUT A WALKING SHADOW!" TIGERSHARKSHADOW = "BUT A SWIMMING SHADOW" DIVININGROD = HOT = "SOUND AND FURY!" VOLCANO_ALTAR_TOWER = "FULL OF SOUND AND FURY" CANDLEHAT = "ON, ON, BRIEF CANDLE!"

ARMORCACTUS = "BY THE PRICKING OF MINE ARMOR" MAXWELL = "MR. WICKED THIS WAY COMES" FIRERAINSHADOW = "SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES!" WAXING = "SOMETHING WICKED'D THIS WAY COMES!" wicked'd... COCONADE = BURNING = "SOMETHING BOOMING THAT WAY GOES" POG = "SOMETHING CUTIES THIS WAY COMES" TALLBIRDEGG_CRACKED = "SOMETHING BEAKY THIS WAY COMES!"

GREENAMULET = "DOUBLE, DOUBLE TOIL" PIG_SHOP_ARCANE = GENERIC = "TOIL AND TROUBLES"

FROGLEGS_POISON = "TOE O' FROG" SNAKE = "'TIS FENNY SNAKE?"

Much Ado GENERIC = "AS LONG AS THE DAY IS MERRY" GNAT = "MUCH ADO ABOUT GNAT-ING"

R&J BOAT_TORCH = "WHAT LIGHT!" ANNOUNCE_ENTER_LIGHT = "LIGHT THOUGH YONDER DARK STUFFS BREAKS" YELLOWGEM = "WHAT LIGHT THROUGH YONDER GEM BREAKTH?" SLURPER = "WHAT LIGHT THROUGH YONDER FUR BREAKS?" FIREFLIES = GENERIC = "A LIGHT THROUGH YONDER BUG BUTT BREAKS" FLUP = "WHAT EYE THROUGH YONDER GROUND BREAKS?"

there's a handful of "WHEREFORE ART YOU?" "WHEREFORE ART THAT?" SLURPER_PELT = "WEAR FUR ART NOW?" PIG_RUINS_ARTICHOKE = "WHEREFORE ART-ICHOKE?"

WALL_MOONROCK = "IT BE NAUGHT LIKE INCONSISTENT MOON" insufferable pedantry: it's "inconstant moon," actually MULTITOOL_AXE_PICKAXE = "IS'T INCONSTANT TOOL" yeah, like that

several "BUT SOFT, 'TIS SOFT BUTT!" for rabbit tails, bearger fur etc

CUTLICHEN = "CAVE ROT BY ANY OTHER NAME WOULD TASTE AS SWEET" GUANO = "PLOP BY ANY T'OTHER NAME" FULLHONEY = "YUMS BY ANY OTHER NAMES" BEEFALOWOOL = "WOOL FROM ANY OTHER BEAST WOULD SMELL SWEETER" CORAL = "A ROCK BY ANY OTHER NAME" TOUCAN = "A NOSE BY OTHER NAME 'TIS CALL'D A BEAK"

RUBBLE = "THE COURSE OF BUILDING NEVER RUN SMOOTH"

SWORDFISH = "PUT UP THY SWORD"

BEEHIVE = "A PLAGUE ON BEES HOUSES!" WORMHOLE_LIMITED = "A PLAGUE UPON IT"

Tempest ACTIVE = "WHAT BRAVE NEW WORLD DOS'T THIS LEAD?", BEDROLL_STRAW = "'TIS STUFF DREAMS ARE MADE IN" PIGGYBACK = "'TIS SUCH THING AS WILBA MADE ON" KNIGHT_NIGHTMARE = "STUFF BAD DREAMS ARE MADE ON" PLAYER_HOUSE_GOTHIC_CRAFT = "SUCH STUFFS AS HOUSES ARE MADE OF"

ONEMANBAND = "WILBA PLAY'TH SWEET AIRS" (maaaybe?) BELL = "DING-DONG, BELL" (phrase is also in Merchant)

Merchant of Venice TRANSISTOR = "ALL THAT GLITTERS IS GOLD?" BLUEGEM = "ALL THAT GLITTERS 'TIS COLD" GNATMOUND = "ALL THAT BUZZES IS GNAT HOME"

HONEYHAM = "'TIS POUND O' FLESH" TELEPORTATO_BOX = "A POUND O' BOX" TELEPORTATO_CRANK = "A POUND O' CRANK" TELEPORTATO_POTATO = "A POUND O' POTATO" TELEPORTATO_RING = "A POUND O' RING" ELEPHANTCACTUS_ACTIVE = "YOU PRICK WILBA, SHE DOST BLEED!" SNAKE_POISON = "IF YOU POISON WILBA, WILL SHE NOT DIE?" ANCIENT_ROBOT_CLAW = "HATH NAUGHT A ROBOT HANDS?"

Lear POWCAKE = "BLOW, CAKE!" IRONWIND = "BLOW, WINDS" WIND_CONCH = "BLOW, WINDS, WILBA CRACK HER CHEEKS" ANNOUNCE_VOLCANO_ERUPT = "SPIT-ETH FIRES! SPOUT-ETH RAIN!" VOLCANOSTAFF = "WILBA SPIT FWOOSHING, SPOUT RAIN!" HAIL_ICE = "SPIT ICE! SPOUT, RAIN!" HOUNDSTOOTH = "SHARPER THAN A SERPENT'S TOOTH" NOHONEY = "NOTHINGS CAN COME OF NOTHINGS!" SOMEHONEY = "HAVE MORE THAN THOU SHOWEST?" PIGMAN_ERUDITE = GENERIC = "SPEAK LESS THAN SHE KNOWEST" RELIC_3 = "IT SPEAKS LESS THAN IT NOSE-EST" TREEGUARD = "COME NOT 'TWEEN A TREE AND HIS WRATH!" DRAGOONDEN = "COME NOT 'TWEEN THE DRAGOON AND ITS WEIGHTS" TRAWLNETDROPPED = "FORTUNE SMILE ONCE MORE" WOODLEGS_CAGE = "LET'S AWAY TO PRISON"

Henry IV PIRATEHAT = "UNEASY LIES HEAD THAT WEAR PIRATE HAT" PIGCROWNHAT = "UNEASY LIES HEAD THAT WEAR-ETH THE CROWN" KRAKEN = "UNEASY LIES THE HEAD 'NEATH THE WATER!" PEAGAWKFEATHERHAT = "EASY LIES THE HEAD THAT WEARS PRETTY HAT"

SNAKE_AMPHIBIOUS = "A BOLTING-HUTCH OF BEASTLINESS" SLEEPING = "O GENTLE SLEEP!" BILL = GENERIC = "'TIS A FUSTILARIAN" ADULT_FLYTRAP = GENERIC = "I'LL TICKLE YOUR CATASTROPHE!" HIPPOPOTAMOOSE = "THOU ART AS FAT AS BUTTER!" RUG_PORCUPUSS = "'TIS BOMBARD OF SACK" i havent seen what this is ingame but i'm not confident that klei knows what that means

Henry V SPIDER = "WILBA UNTO THE BREACH!" SPIDER_WARRIOR = "WILBA ONCE MORE UNTO THE BREACH!" ANCIENT_ROBOT_LEG = "THE ROBOT IS AFOOTS"

Julius Caesar GENERIC = "LET SLIP THE PIG OF WAR!", PREY = "WILBA CRY HAVOC!" WARG = "'TIS DOGS OF WARG" SOLOFISH = "LET SLIP THE DOGS O' SEA" FLOWERSALAD = "'TIS FOR SALAD DAYS" SPIDERHAT = "FOR SPIDERS TO LEND WILBA THEIR EARS" EARRING = "WILBA LEND IT MINE EAR"

Taming SCORPION = GENERIC = "THEREBY HANGS A TAIL" ANT_CAVE_LANTERN = "THEREBY HANGS A LIGHT"

Othello PUGALISK = "BEAST WITH ONE BACK"

12th Night several "FOOD BE THE FOOD OF LOVE!" "ALL FOOD BE FOOD OF LOVE" etc MAXWELLPHONOGRAPH = "FOOD OF LOVE?" OX_FLUTE = "WILBA PLAY THE FOOD O' LOVE" ZEB = GENERIC = "'TIS HORSEY O' A DIFFERENT COLOR"

Timon of Athens, now THERE's a deep cut MEAN_FLYTRAP = GENERIC = "WOULD IT WERT CLEAN ENOUGH TO SPIT 'PON" ANTMAN = GENERIC = "WILBA WOULD BEAT THEE, BUT T'WOULD INFECT MINE HANDS"

misc SPEAR = "WILBA SHAKETH THIS SPEAR" RAINFORESTTREE = GENERIC = "SHALL I COMPARE THEE TO ANOTHER TREE?" lOTUS = "SHALL WILBA COMPARE IT TO SUMMER DAY?"

i don't think "o'er-peer the oceans" is anything because the only use of "o'er-peer" is apparently in coriol-fuckin-anus, but: SUPERTELESCOPE = "WILBA CAN'ST O'ER-PEER THE OCEANS"

CROCODOG = "'TIS A WHITE-EYED MONSTER" miiiiight be othello?

[csd3sign-blog]

A Narrative Arc

What is a narrative arc?

In the broadest terms, the narrative arc is shaped by the beginning, middle, and end of a story. You may already be familiar with one classic example of the story arc: boy meets girl, boy fails girl, boy gets girl again. This may sound oversimplified, and it is. Adding complexity to a basic story arc is part of what differentiates one story from another, even when they’re ostensibly dealing with the same ideas.

Boy gets girl, boy ends up on an island with girl.

It’s sometimes useful to think about the story arc as though you’re setting up a simple dramatic play. Ultimately, you’ve got three acts to tell your story.

In Act One, you set the scene and introduce your audience to the characters, the setting, and the seeds of conflict.

In Act Two, your characters grow and change in response to conflicts and circumstances. They set about trying to resolve the Big Problem. Usually, the conflict will escalate to a climax.

In Act Three, characters resolve the Big Problem and the story ends.

What’s the difference between a narrative arc and a plot?

While the plot is comprised of the individual events that make up your story, your story arc is the sequence of those events. Imagine every scene of your novel summarized on notecards: the entire stack of cards is your plot, but the order in which you lay them out is your story arc.

Thinking about your arc is essential around this point. What if your Scene 1 notecard actually belongs in the denouement? What if you have too many scenes based on internal conflict in a row (leaving the external conflict to wither)? Carefully ordering your plot into a cohesive story arc helps readers navigate your story, and sets expectations that you can either satisfy or disrupt.

If the plot is the skeleton of your story, the narrative arc is the spine. It’s the central through-line marking the plot’s progress from beginning to end.

How about the character arc?

The narrative arc is to the story what the character arc is to a character. The narrative arc involves the plot on a grand scale, and a character arc charts the inner journey of a character over the course of the plot.

Another straightforward distinction: while the story arc is external, the character arc is internal, and each main (and sometimes secondary) character will go through an individual arc.

A metaphorical representation of Superman's internal character arc.

Still, narrative and character arcs are part of a symbiotic relationship. Each plot point in the story arc should bring your characters closer to, or further from, their goals and desires. The circumstances and conflicts your characters face are part of the arc, but the way characters meet challenges and change as a result is “character arc” territory.

How do you structure a narrative arc?

So, remember what we said about the three acts that make up a story arc? If you try to visualize the progression of action in your mind, you may see something that builds up and falls as so:

That’s right . . . a pyramid. (One that's set upon a roller coaster, for your viewing pleasure.)

Freytag’s Pyramid

In 1863, Gustav Freytag, a 19th-century German novelist, used a pyramid to study common patterns in stories’ plots. He put forward the idea that every narrative arc goes through five dramatic stages: exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, and resolution.

Freytag’s Pyramid is a useful tool that reveals the structure of many stories, so it’s the framework we’ll be using in the next few sections. Feel free to use the diagram above as a reference as you follow along, or skip to your preferred stage below.

Exposition Rising Action Climax Falling Action Denouement

Exposition

The de-facto introduction to your book, the exposition is Act One of the story arc. You’re setting the table in the exposition: bringing out your characters, setting up the seeds of conflict, and imparting just enough background information to keep the reader clued in on what’s occurring in the story.

Here’s a brief overview of what else the reader should be able to extract from the exposition of your story (which, incidentally, ties neatly into the 5 Ws):

The characters. Who’s in the cast of characters? How can you differentiate among them?

The setting. Where does your story take place? Don’t forget that setting includes time — when does your story take place? What time period?

The mood. How will you set the tone of the novel in the exposition? A romance that suddenly goes sideways due to an alien invasion is going to confuse readers and cloud your book's genre classification.

The size of the exposition depends on your book. The Count of Monte Cristotakes many thousands of words to set the stage, while P.G. Wodehouse wastes no time galloping past the exposition.

Jeeves & Wooster galloping right past the exposition.

A word of caution: don’t mistake “exposition” for “info dump.” Even while Tolkien is busy introducing the reader to an enormous cast of dwarves in The Hobbit, there’s a booming party going on and poor Bilbo’s scrambling to serve tea! Readers will be interested in background information only when it doesn’t distract or detract from the plot. You must balance action and information if you want them to continue flipping the pages.

What’s a good story without a few (or more) wrinkles?

Usually, the rising action is prompted by a key trigger (also known as the inciting incident), which is what says to the reader, “Here we go.” It’s the moment Romeo sees Juliet, or it’s the split second in which Katniss’s sister, Prim, is picked during the reaping. Whatever the circumstances, the key trigger is the event that rolls the dice and causes a series of events to escalate, setting the rest of the story in motion.

As your exposition already set up your characters and conflict, it’s now the job of the rising action to:

Develop the characters while allowing relationships between characters to deepen.

Escalate the conflict and amp up tension.

In Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express, everything that occurs after Hercule Poirot steps foot onto the train — up until the murder of R — constitutes the story’s rising action. In the book, this stage’s function becomes twofold: not only does it strengthen the suspense on the train, but the sequence of events also starts revealing the cast of suspects’ relationships and motives to the reader. How your characters respond to the changing situations in this stage will speak volumes about them.

Climax

A good climax will build upon everything earlier — the storylines, motives, character arcs — and package it all together. It’s both the moment of truth for the protagonist (the peak of the character arc) and the event to which the plot’s built up (the peak of the arc). When the outer and inner journeys come together and click, you know you’ve got the beginnings of a winning climax.

On the flip side, a bad climax is the easiest way for a reader to feel cheated and chuck your book at the wall. They’ll use your book as tissue paper in the future, or — worse! — never pick a book of yours up again. So the climax is one of the most important parts of your story arc. While it’s the beginning that sells ‘this novel,’ it’s the climax that sells ‘the next’ novel.

Falling Action

Okay, so you’ve gone and banged out a climax that knocks the reader right out of the park. What next? Your job definitely isn’t over yet, because the story can’t just grind to a stop. (FYI, that would make it every reader’s Public Enemy #1: the cliffhanger.)

Instead, you can follow this old axiom: what goes up must come down.

Let’s say that Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone closes up shop right when Harry passes out after defeating Quirrell. But we need to see Harry wake up in the Infirmary and chat it out with Dumbledore; to feel satisfied, we need to see Dumbledore award Neville Longbottom the 10 House points that win Gryffindor the House Cup. In much the same way, you can show the reader the fruits of the protagonist’s toils. Think of this stage as the bridge between the climax and the resolution. How do you get your characters from the climax to Happily Ever After™?

Here are a few things to keep in mind during this stage of the story arc:

Your characters shouldn’t stop moving just because you’ve checked off the climax. The word “action” does exists in “falling action”; make it count.

Usually, this is the stage where authors start resolving any remaining subplots and mini-conflicts. In Shakespeare’s comedies, this is the stage where everyone merrily pairs off with the right partner. Use this space to tie up any and all dangling threads.

Denouement

And after all that? Well, you’ve made it to the denouement. Elizabeth Bennet and Mr Darcy are engaged. Bilbo returns to Bag End. Huck Finn settles down with Aunt Sally to be “sivilized.” Ishmael is rescued from the sea. Everywhere, readers breathe a collective sigh of relief.

Also called the resolution, the denouement is just a fancy way of saying that the book is now going to wrap up.

For an example of this stage’s function, take the old-fashioned detective novel. In the detective denouement, the detective gathers everyone in a room and reveals the whodunnit, explaining everything. All questions are resolved, all ends are wrapped up — and the reader can shut your book with peace of mind. Congratulations! That’s the whole arc business done and dusted. Isn’t it?

Well, sometimes. That begs the question of. . .

Does Freytag’s Pyramid work with every story?

History is dotted with novels that bucked the trend. On the Road possesses virtually no narrative arc while To Kill a Mockingbird arguably possesses twonarrative arcs (the arcs of Tom Robinson and Boo Radley). The Trial builds up to a complete anti-climax in the place of a climax; meanwhile, Catcher in the Rye casually drops a sentence in the denouement about (spoiler warning) Holden going to a mental institution before the book ends, abruptly.

All this is to say, there’s plenty of room within the arc to explore and experiment. Disrupting reader expectations isn’t always a bad thing, but successfully straying from the expected course requires comprehensive understanding of the traditional story arc. After all, you can’t break what you can’t build.

Another item of note: although the popular five-act structure of Freytag’s Pyramid does capture the chronology of many books’ plots, be aware that some authors use a three-act structure. One significant change that will result deals with the placement of your climax, which this post over at Vintage Novels analyzes quite thoroughly, through The Lord of the Rings.

Source: https://blog.reedsy.com/narrative-arc/

[brigtherthanlamplight]

SHAKESPEARE ON THE BRAIN - pt 3 (Post ‘Richard II’)

Hey gang!

So I must confess it’s been a little while and I’ve actually read ahead quite a bit! 

I have now read both ‘Richard II’ and ‘Henry V’ once through AND I’m currently digesting ‘Julius Caesar’. (Hurrah for being ahead of my reading requirements and being less stressed about uni work!) And let me top this list even more, because I have also managed to find a recording of David Tenants performance of ‘Richard II’ at the RSC from 2013, which as you will often find when studying Shakespeare, helped me have a more solid understanding of the text. Let me explain....

A ) First Impressions

“Why do they hate King Richard?....Wuuuut, he stopped them from having to fight! he saved one of you getting killed, be grateful ye’ idiots??...Why does Bolingbroke want to take the throne? War? Where? Who? How? Why did Richard give up the throne? Why is everyone so angry? This all seems like it could be easy to fix? Where is a peacekeeper? why? why? whyyyyy!?”  - My thoughts, 2017 (a reliable source/reference) 

If asked to break down/sign post the story of ‘Richard II’ I would begin like this (BTW, if this summary is ‘off’ remember I’ve read the play once and seen an adaptation - I’m still learning it too! Tell me if it needs amends!) : 

1. Opening: Two noblemen/dukes come to King Richards court accusing each other of treason. Which one is the liar? What are their accusations grounded on?

2. How to settle an argument PLUS a royal interference: The two quarrelling noblemen/dukes prepare to duel; it is deemed the only way to settle their differences. The King and court prepare to watch and marshall the battle- at the last second the King stops the fight and decides the two men will be banished instead. One for life, the other for 10 years. 

3. Advice from the old to the young: The father of the nobleman/duke banished for 10 years (which is dropped to 6 years) is old and ‘suddenly’ dying. He is sad and bitter that he won’t see his son again and potentially worried for the future of his family and England that he will not be there for. He is sad and bitter for he disagrees in how King Richard is running the country. The King is called to the the mans death bed, where the old man berates the King- gets angry- which equally makes the King angry. The old man dies. Assumably somehow the banished son is told. 

4. WAR?: King Richard leaves England and heads to Ireland to fight in a ‘vanity’ war. (I didn’t realise it was happening, until he landed back in England and kissed the ground). 

5. HOWEVER!?: Whilst the King has been away, over 1200 men have been turned against him and are siding with that nobleman/duke who was banished for 10 (6 years) - this Dukes name I will now reveal is Henry Bolingbroke!- The King is incredibly stunned and scared by the loss of men and loyalty. Then, my favourite speech from the play happens - opening: “Let's talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs; Make dust our paper and with rainy eyes Write sorrow on the bosom of the earth, Let's choose executors and talk of wills: And yet not so, for what can we bequeath Save our deposed bodies to the ground?” HOWEVER, by the end of this speech and after discussing with his advisors Richard is inspired to stand up and see why everyone has turned against him. 

6. Talking across castle walls: Bolingbroke and his 'lad gang’ ride to the castle King Richard has taken up home in, waiting for the people who want him ‘removed’ to come to him. After discussing from the safety of the castle the King agrees to give Bolingbroke the crown - he appears to want to retire without a fight, but seems to think there is honour in this. Hands himself over. 

7. Self Reflections: Bolingbroke and his ‘men’ have Richard as a prisoner - all they need is his abdication and then Henry will become King. However, brought into the throne room and asked to accept retirement, allowing the ruling power to transfer, without any seeming ‘force’, Richard plays the mocker, sarcastic character. They ask him to read charges of his ‘sin’ - a list of reasons why they think he needs to go/be punished. He refuses too, he will only read from one  book in which these sins be writ, which he believes is upon his face. He asks for a mirror. He continues to mock the wannabe court and its new King, until he must admit defeat, hand over power and is sentenced away. 

8. But what about his Queen?: Being taken away to prison and then assumably death, Richard happens across his wife in passing. The pair share a touching scene which showcases their love and affection. The Queen even states the King seems to have lost his courageous self. She asks him to stand up for himself, but Richard sees this a lost cause. The Queen then pleas they be allowed to say together - however, she is to be sent to France and Richard his final fate. 

9. SAVE RICHARD II: The nobleman, Aumerle who believes in the leadership of Richard- is among a group of men, who wish to save Richard and subsequently kill Henry! However, whilst with his mother and father, the Duchess and Duke of York, he carries a letter detailing the treason he wishes to perform against the new king. His father, loyal to Bolingbroke, is outraged- but the son runs off to the king to beg ‘forgiveness’ for his trespassing. When alone with the new king, ‘begging’ forgiveness, we never get to find out if the begging forgiveness is an act before giving Aumerle perfect opportunity to kill the new king or if he is genuinely begging to save his life. His audience alone with the king is interrupted by his parents - his mother begging he be forgiven and her son following her orders, whilst his father scorns him. King Henry forgives Aumerle.

10. Alone in a cell: Richard is locked up. His royal garb gone, he is delirious and sad and presented as a tragic hero. Suddenly, his cell is intruded by murders. Poor Richard is killed, defenceless. 

11. I love the murdered, but hate the murderer: Richards body is brought to King Henry by the murderer. Although pleased the deed is done, the King says he cannot bare to look upon the man who did this to Richard - though it is exactly what he wanted. 

THE END (of a hodgepodge summary :)

SO, this is an account of how ‘I’ read the play the first time and all the information ‘I’ took from my first reading.

B) Original Things I Questioned/ I am still Questioning

1) What was the point of the fight in the opening? Nothing happened, and both men left with their lives. Why was Bolingbroke so bitter?

2) Why does Bolingbroke’s father get angry at Richard?

3) How did Richard get the throne?

4) What wars were going on at the time? Had happened? Why does Richard leave England?

5) How does 1200 men turn on their leader?

6) Why does Richard give up his crown? Why does he cave so easily?

7) Why does Aumerle give up his fight for Richard so easily?

8) WHY DOES NOBODY LIKE RICHARD! HE SEEMS REALLY REALLY TOO NICE!

^As you can see all these thoughts and feelings are all good and well, but after just reading the play I’d only absorbed the story and the words. Naturally this had hindered me slightly, as my reading of the text was internalised. Shakespeare’s text do not give you the full story of the characters and motives in which they move within, but I personally find performed interpretations are the best ways of filling the gaps in this problem. FYI, this is a hot debate in my class rn - is Shakespeare made to be read by ones self, alone, in your head or performed on a stage, for an audience! 

So theeeeeeeeennn, I watched the RSC 2013 interprtationetation and it answered some of my original questions! 

C) Impressions Post 1 Live Performance 

(FYI, when looking at a live performance DO NOT FORGET, directors cut, edit and interpret meanings and scenes within the play text - you are not always seeing the full text NOR in no way can we ever see it how the author originally imagined - directors always have a vision) 

1. “OMG! What if Bolingbroke wanted to replace the King all along - thus when he was accused of treason at the beginning, the other nobleman wasn’t lying! Meaning Richard exiled the one person who knew Bolingbroke was on a mission to get rid of him! Plus through Bolingbroke being banished AND his father dying whilst he was away, surely his original motive to kill Richard was now hidden behind plausible reasons to want ‘revenge’”

2. Wow, Richard can be totally played with no relationship truly with his wife...how sad...they’re together scene at the end seemed so nice in reading and words. Hmm.

3.   Wow, the costume for Richard in this production sets him apart from the court. He is mostly seen in whites and gold, ordained with necklace of the cross of Christ. Interestingly, the RSC slowly removed this costume bit by bit until Richard is left standing in a white shift after being captured. He contrasts very much with the darker colours of all the other men, but fits in with he clergy men. This seems to reflect how ‘obsessed’ he is with his rights as having a mind which is direct with god! One of his fatal flaws. 

4. Richard II can be performed with queer undertones, intriguing. This impression and evidence was supplied by the fact Richard barely has a physical/conversational relationship with his wife - yet is surrounded by men, like “catapillars” who fawn over him and flatter him. Plus, there is a scene in which Richard and Aumerle kiss. See, this can re read as a moment of bounding with someone in fear, kiss - release the tension and fear of dying, even project that fear into a sexual/loving action many enjoy and crave. It can be seen the kisses of soldiers in ancient warfare who kiss before battle. It can simply be read as a queer relationship. All very interesting!

5. Bolingbroke can be played as a regretful character. He can appear unfit for the throne, he can appear unsure if it’s really his, he can appear with still respect and affection for Richard. 

Building off of point 5, one MASSIVE and crucial reading you MUST take from Richard II. It is the first story in a series! It is setting the scene and foregrounding Shakespeare’s Henry IV pt1, Henry IV pt 2 and Henry V, AND then the rest of his Kingly history plays. Critics often say after Richard II people are left feeling unresolved; common with tragedy - but I think it’s more so we all known Richard II could have done and been more for Britain, he just never got to complete his role. Furthermore, can we ever say Henry IV is truly a King after Richard - for the role of King is a right past down by God, yet is it is Richard who ‘passes’ the power to Henry Bolingbroke. This move is unofficial for Richard is not God, he has no right to choose. Thus the theme of uncertainty and lake of loyalty carries on until Henry V takes the throne in this royal tetralogy (Thats what ya call a 4 part series folks - I love new words!)

For now I’m going to leave all these thoughts here! Expect another ramble about Henry V, until then Goodbye!x