by Scott Phillips (Circle 4)
The best part about being an avid reader of comic books to me was never the heroes; although some heroes are quite wonderful for not only their devotion to justice but also the underhanded ways in which many of them devote themselves to justice. The best part was always the villains, the bad guys, the ones who for whatever purpose, rhyme, reason, or explanation desire to purge the world of light and envelop it in darkness. Shakespeare, to me, was really a 16th/17th century version of a pulp writer, the ones who creates our favorite heroes and villains of the 20th century. Some of the same archetypes made their way from he pages of Shakespeare to the panels of comic book infamy. None stand out quite like the villains.
Of course, in Othello, we have Iago, everyone’s favorite sadistic rogue, that is a master of malicious manipulation. In Julius Caesar, there is Cassius, the cool and collected usurper of Caesar’s power as well as King Lear’s “base” offspring, Edmund. But no other villain, save possibly Iago, comes close to the kind of lechery brought upon by Shakespeare greatest villain, Richard Glouscester of the house of York.
This man (?) is what many would define as “pure evil”. And he exhibits this evil in so many sadistic and frightening ways. First of all, he manipulates literally everyone he comes in contact with for his own personal gain and to topple the establishment of his family’s infrastructure from the inside. He has his brother taken prisoner and eventually murdered at his own command, manipulates and seduces the widow of a man he brutally massacred on the battlefield and revels in the death of his other brother the king. The best example of his evil is in Act I.II, his initial confrontation with Lady Anne over the body of her fallen husband. From early in the scene, Lady Anne’s hatred for Richard is apparent but he never wavers from his underlying malice. He begins to praise her amid her anger. In reaction to her rendering him Henry’s “accursed effect” he responds: “Your beauty was the cause of that effect–Your beauty did haunt me in my sleep to undertake the death of all the world so I might live one hour in your sweet bosom (I.II, 121-124).” With this line he does what all good psychopaths are apt to do. He begins to tug upon her emotions, taking them and twisting them to his own favor. He was not in the wrong. A psychopath never is. It is the other person who is misinterpreting the situation. And in this case it is Anne. Richard’s love for her was so great that he could not help himself but slay the man who stood in the way of said love. He says this after he already tries to lie about the killing of Henry. He announces to her initially that it is Edward that kills Henry. But of course, when she sees through his lie, he uses another tactic: sympathy. All of this is in the realm of emotional manipulation. And by the end of the scene he entreats her to grant him another meeting with her to let him further explain his actions and “intentions”: “…repair to Crosby house, where…I will with all expedient duty see you…grant me this boon (203-206).” She then replies with a “With all my heart”. He successfully swayed her toward his side by getting her to entertain the notion. Richard III is like the Joker of the Shakespearean cannon. He is the ultimate villain who innately understands how to manipulate to get what he wants. He doesn’t just manipulate, he destroys people from the inside out, often without them even knowing. And then he basks in his glories.
Hi Scott! Great post! Love that you are giving the villains credit where it is due for making a comic book read or a play so much more interesting to watch or read! I am a big Batman fan, and one of the things I love about Batman is that while he is considered a hero by many, he is also viewed by Gotham City officials as a vigilante, a criminal who has no right to take matters of the law into his own hands. It kind of got me thinking that maybe Batman has a God complex, a belief that a person is above all and can control all, the feeling of never being able to fail.
It was tempting before today’s discussion to liken Richard to having a God complex, but, as we understand from scene where the ghosts are haunting Richard, he is not immune to death, and if anything, attaining the Crown has made him much more aware of his proximity to death because of the opposition that could (and eventually does) cause his demise. Thanks for posting!
Scott,
I’m glad I’m not the only one who found the greatest interest in the evil that is Richard and how far his manipulation would extend throughout the course of the play. In the first few acts, he seems untouchable in his tactics, plotting plan after plan and killing with little remorse– his ambition and his goals being primary.
As we were discussing in class earlier, Richard’s evil and his conflicting and treacherous mind is what makes the play as intriguing as it is. When Richmond comes on the scene, his character seems much less intriguing than Richard and his thought process seems simple or rehearsed. A villain makes for a more well developed story that keeps readers engaged. Most readers of this play could not easily understand the motives of Richard (at least I hope not) and the chase for knowledge of his thought process is what keeps the story going and peaks the audience’s interest.
Great post, Scott! I am not really a huge reader of serial comics although I like the characters and universes that occupy them. I love the comparison of Richard to the Joker — someone who is able to get a band of misfits together and dispatch them at his will when he is done using them. I must say that of all of Richard’s misdeeds and treachery, the one that is most psychologically disturbing to me is the scene you pointed out, where Lady Anne is manipulated into marrying him.
Here’s something that intrigues me in your comparison with the Joker: what does it take to eliminate a villain that the regular law has no power over? It takes someone who is working for the purpose of the law but not under the law: Batman. And who comes along to get rid of Richard? Richmond! Remember how Prof. Mulready pointed out that Richmond’s actions were technically treason by opposing the king? In a sense, we can say that Richmond is a sort of Batman: a vigilante who operates outside of the bounds of the law to put things right.
To continue your comparison, Stanley–who gives Richmond all the help he can in secret during the final battle–in many ways is the Det. Gordon to Richmond’s Batman. While he can’t openly defy the now-king, his support for the opposing side is absolute, albeit undercover.
Scott,
I never would have thought to compare Shakespeare to a modern-day pulp fiction writer, but your explanation and basis for comparison is extremely respectful. In the realm of tragedies and the wicked, I think it may be fair to say that Shakespeare’s popularity during his time (and today!) could be equal to the massive fame and praise writers like Stephen King receive today. Authors such as these seem to have a special insight into what it takes to be an effective evil master mind. Not only can they write pure evil, they can also breathe life into characters so overwhelmingly evil that they give them impression of being humanitarian.
In my post due last week, I also wrote about the powers and whims Richard III is able to exercise on others in order to accomplish his goals. Truthfully, he does read like a genuine psychopath given his lack of conscience, his determination, his manipulative ways, and his totally absent regard for the well-being of others. Somehow, it’s always fascinating to read about characters that fall under the same class of evil as Richard. I think normal humans have a gross interest and fascination with those that truly lack empathy and compassion and writers like Shakespeare certainly know how to feed into this incessant need to understand the conscienceless.
Hey Scott!
I really, really enjoyed the comparison/observation you made regarding Shakespeare and the villains we read about today—awesome idea to comment on.
I agree with you, too; Richard III managed to manipulate everyone around him, and not for any just or great reasoning, but rather simply because he wanted to hold power over them. Every move that Richard III had made was calculated in obtaining his personal goals.
I really liked that you decided to analyze the scene with Lady Anne as one of the most profound examples of his manipulation and sadism. “He destroys people from the inside out” was a really great way of putting it to, as we do see that throughout the play, although predominately with Lady Anne. Richard goes beyond the task of manipulation; he doesn’t just stop playing the game when people give him what he wants, he makes sure he goes on until they can’t anymore (whether that be mentally, or physically when he kills them). It’s a giant game of predator vs. prey, and Richard III makes sure his ‘prey’ is tortured before he kills them off.
Over-all, fantastic post and a really great read; wonderful ideas to think about, too.
Their similar levels of moral depravity and ability to manipulate are not the only ways in which the two are similar. Even their origins share important points. In my blog post last week, I wrote about how Richard’s lack of caring about others and tendency toward violence might very well be a product of his low self-image and the negative labels placed on him since birth. In this way, Richard’s terrible nature isn’t entirely his fault. Similarly, the Joker didn’t begin as a violent psychopath. The most widely-accepted backstory for him in Batman canon states that he was initially sucked into crime out of desperation to support his pregnant wife after failing miserably as a comedian. During his first criminal enterprise, his wife and unborn child died (I don’t remember how), yet he was forced to continue the operation, which ended in a shootout with police that only the Joker survived by jumping into a reservoir of chemicals that left him disfigured. The grief of losing his family combined with the shock of his newly-disfigured visage drove him to insanity, which drove him to violence. Just like Richard is partially a product of his circumstances, so too is the Joker, leading us to the question of how and why we judge morality when looking at these types of characters.
Scott,
I really loved your blog post! As someone who is also immediately drawn to villains in comic books, I was immediately interested in the comparisons that you had to offer. Considering how interested I have always been in the Joker as a character, I especially appreciated your comparisons between him and Richard. It’s very true that both of these characters enjoy watching things crumble for their own enjoyment. It’s really interesting to note Richard’s obsession with power, and how it drives him to create the levels of chaos that the Joker creates so frequently.