I think I’m going to like the histories.<\/p>\n
I say this not because King John<\/i> is a great play. It’s not. It’s narrative is very straight-forward. Many of its character, particularly John himself, are bland. I don’t recall grinning like a baboon at any particularly excellent dialogue.<\/p>\n
However, it has one advantage over the comedies: it’s easy to follow. The comedies rely a great deal on clever dialogue, phrasing and references that often go over the heads of even an educated contemporary reader (Love’s Labours Lost<\/i> especially). It’s very difficult to get into a play when I’m touching every third word to find out what it means. John<\/i>, by contrast, and I suspect the histories in general, are less cumbersome to the Brocca’s Area.<\/p>\n
John has some big weaknesses: the seemingly arbitrary shifts in loyalty among the barons (probably reflective of reality, but not very accessible); the shrewish sparring between Lady Constance and Queen Eleanor; and Arthur’s pleading for his life doesn’t really work for me. But things liven up every time the Bastard is on stage. I found myself hoping he would succeed John to the throne.<\/p>\n
Not a bad start, actually, despite its reputation as the weakest of the histories.<\/p>\n
Next Up: Richard II<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I think I’m going to like the histories. I say this not because King John is a great play. It’s not. It’s narrative is very straight-forward. Many of its character, particularly John himself, are bland. I don’t recall grinning like a baboon at any particularly excellent dialogue. However, it has one advantage over the comedies: … Continue reading The Shakespeare Project: King John<\/span>