by Cassidy Kokasko, Blogging Circle 5
Within the selected works we’ve read this semester, there have been three instances of incredibly articulate male characters and while the overall language of Shakespeare is often very eloquent, these characters surpass even that. The command over language that they possess is staggering, but it’s how they each utilize this gift that’s really interesting. There’s a distinct separation between characters like Richard III or Othello who use their linguistic talents for themselves versus those like Feste who instead use it for the entertainment of others. And perhaps the fates of these characters are meant to be a lesson to the audience on how
If we were to consider Richard’s use of spoken word, we would recognize it as his main weapon in his quick rise to power. His manipulation of language twists the desires of anyone he speaks to. In his initial reaction of Anne, he woos her completely through his words, drawing out elaborate exclamations of love in an effort to convince her that he loves her. His pieces of dialogue in 1.3 are all for the purpose of crafting a facade of innocence for himself to convince his audience that he supports the King before himself. Every speech he makes is for the purpose of furthering his social status, for he understands that his voice is his power and that persuasion and intimidation will get him everywhere. Othello, on the other hand, uses his speech as a way to convince the citizens of Venice of his worth. He waxes poetic about his adventures and history in an attempt to help them understand that he is . His listeners are entranced by his stories, for they even cause Desdemona to fall in love with him. He is so eloquent that there’s almost a mystical quality to his speech, as his audience becomes enchanted and enraptured in his stories. For him, language is a tool that can be used to elevate his status.
But then there are characters like Feste who shows a different side to this character type. Rather than serving himself, his intelligence is solely for the benefit of others, not just in entertaining them, but providing them with an intellectual equal. And while characters use this to their own advantage (like when he is forced by Maria to pretend to be Sir Topas), we still never see him utilize speech as a way to change his position as an inferior. He doesn’t brag about his higher intelligence, instead choosing to keep it concealed from other characters who might not understand him. But when he speaks to Olivia or Viola, he allows himself to be genuine in his language, for he sees that they can appreciate it and be entertained by his cunning wit.
And of course arguments could be made that perhaps these commanders of language are sort of self-insert characters that reflect Shakespeare’s command of the English language (and in fact I believe it was brought up by someone in class). This poses an interesting question, for if Shakespeare did intend for these characters to represent parts of himself, do they carry a lesson with them? Both Othello and Richard come to violent ends as a result of their own self centered nature and how they manipulate language to their own ends, while Feste instead avoids any sort of tragedy whatsoever. Perhaps an argument could be made that Shakespeare valued the use of language for a common good and hoped that his audience would understand that nothing good can come of using your talents solely for yourself and that they are instead meant to be shared and appreciated by all.
Cassidy,
You made some really great points! I liked your focus on language and its use as a weapon. Although we are all aware that The Lion King is more so a take on Hamlet, when I read the part where you explained how Richard’s weapon is his use of language, it reminded me of the point in the film where Scar realized he may not be next in line and he may not have the strength of his brother, but he was smarter and the tongue can be sharper than the sword. Not to bring Disney into this or anything…but that immediately clicked. Words have such a powerful affect—I like your comparison of Richard and Othello; how both are such different characters, yet wield their linguistic talents so well and with precision. The contrast with Feste was also very interesting. Shakespeare really is the master of different forms of language. Really captivating post—great job!
I think you make some really interesting points about Richard’s use of language throughout the play, and I think he is definitely guilty of manipulation. However, I think Richard is able to manipulate by silencing others, rather through his ability to change their minds through his words. Anne only marries him because she is afraid he will kill her, and anyone that gets in the way of Richard’s plans is immediately killed. He kills Clarence, his nephews, Anne, and Buckingham. I think the perception of him that I have formed throughout the play is not that he is a master manipulator of words, but rather that he is power-hungry coward who kills people out of fear of losing power. Richard embodies toxic masculinity, and I would not want to conflate his violent misogyny with intelligence.
Cassidy,
I loved reading your post this week! It was very interesting to see how you expressed the importance of language in Shakespeare’s work. I also have noticed how Richard is able to simply manipulate the people around him. It amazes me that they are able to understand the evil agenda Richard is pursuing, yet none of them go against him. I was most disturbed at Lady Anne whom had just lost her husband- which can be attributed to Richard. Not only is that bad enough, however, he woos her in front of her late husband’s corpse. Showing how shallow she truly is for I think she realized that being Richards wife would give her a life of luxury, an in with those in power. Perhaps, I am wrong, but to swoon over someone calling you pretty in front of your dead husband is beyond disturbing. Anyways, I digress. I really liked how you talked about a lesson projected on to the character’s in the voice of Shakespeare. To touch on that, I think there is some truth because when one writes they are writing for a purpose. I think Shakespeare was clever enough to know how to manipulate his audience without looking like Richard.
Cassidy you made so many good points about the use of language and dialogue. I never compared the use of dialogue with other characters in Shakespeare’s plays and how they all may be connected through a common theme. The theme of bad has to relate to Richard and Othello, and the theme of good has to do with Feste. The way Richard and Othello use their language is very similar in that the outcome of what they say was usually never good. I would also compare it to Iago, as he never says anything good and is purely diabolical, eventually leading to his demise as well. Likewise in both Othello and Richard III, both plays use the silence of the women as a way of keeping everything going. The women in the plays know so much and feel so many emotions, yet they are overshadowed by the masculinity.
I agree with you that Richard is able to manipulate people through his words, although I question why. Anne for instance, he manipulates her when she’s the most vulnerable. Did he successfully manipulate her the way it seemed? I’m 50/50 in regards to his manipulation of her because at first she wants nothing to do with him, and even after she agrees to be with him, she says she will not marry him. I believe that the only reason Anne ends up with him is because of his title, not because he’s a smooth talker.
Shakespeare definitely believes in the power of language. I agree with you that most of his memorable villains are those who command language more powerfully than other characters. These characters a certainly a warning to his audience. Like most tools, language can be converted into a weapon in the wrong hands. An awareness of how language can be used to mislead and manipulate is the best defense against such a weapon being turned on you. By having the most memorable villains be master manipulators, Shakespeare is urging us to pay attention to everything we perceive. To take nothing at face value and think when someone speaks, not just listen.
You mention language in relation to manipulation and putting on an act, basically, when it comes to Richard, and make the distinction between the use of language for self-service (in Othello and Richard’s case) and the use for the greater-good/entertainment of all (in Feste’s case). It reminds me of the metadramatic connections that we’ve made in class and makes me wonder how Shakespeare sees himself and his plays. If, as you say, he might have “valued the use of language for a common good and hoped that his audience would understand that nothing good can come of using your talents solely for yourself and that they are instead meant to be shared and appreciated by all,” what does that say about him as a playwright, who may have often injected personal political ideologies into his plays, and who gained a higher standing in society because of using his talents?
I really like your ideas about Shakespeare’s use of language as a symbol of power, value, and entertainment. This is a subject that we discussed in the beginning of class (when we read “The Play of Language” and Shakespeare’s sonnets). It is really interesting to see how he goes about using language as a tool and how both characters we would consider “evil” and characters we would consider “good” both use sophisticated language to their benefit. I think that even if he didn’t do it intentionally, Shakespeare does represent his own command of the English language through his characters. Your final comment reminds me of the concept of artistic immortality: if you preserve someone through writing, they can never truly die.
Cassidy,
I cannot agree more with your assessment. Many of Shakespeare’s most memorable characters are ones who demonstrate a complete mastery of language, whether that be for their own benefit, or for the benefit of others. Many of the characters who I will often see using language as a tool, is often in the act of persuasion. Othello must use this ability to proclaim his innocence and defend himself before the Duke of Venice, whereas Richard III uses his words of false flattery to convince Lady Anne to not only spare his life, but to also marry him. While one act is seen as noble, and the other sinister, they are both utilized very effectively, and all for the sake of coercion.
Cassidy,
I really enjoyed your post! Regarding Richard’s voice as his main weapon, I wonder if his proficiency in combat is equivalent, considering he thrives to instigate war again. He yearns for the battlefield because he feels unable to celebrate the moment of peace with his deformities, unlike the other warriors and king. However, Richard dies in combat against Richmond, which suggests that his fighting capabilities are not equivalent to his manipulation of language. However, his voice is unable to persuade everyone over to his side, which leads the war ending his life. Although he’s able to become king by twisting the desires of anyone, he’s unable to maintain his position of power because others rise to oppose him. The elements of his character are so contradictory because he mentions about his place on the battlefield in the beginning, yet he’s clearly intelligent enough to be more than a bloody murderer. I don’t believe that physical form is the only means to be happy in any time period. Thus, I believe that Richard is making excuses to cause bloodshed so he can rise to power; and I guarantee he wouldn’t be content with that in the end either. Bards and poets are valued for their usage of language, and Richard’s wealthy enough as an aristocrat. He could have been happy with someone loving and appreciating his existence. He could have met someone who wasn’t shallow and judged him for his deformed arm. Maybe he instigated war and countless deaths because he couldn’t play discus with his deformities. Well, probably not, but he had other options instead of ambitiously murdering for power. Thus, his actions are comparable to Brutus is Julius Caesar. Excellent post, Cassidy!
Very well written blog post, first of all. The one point I would like to make is when you say Feste doesn’t use his eloquence to raise his status — I disagree. By pretending to be Sir Topas, he has elevated his status, even if superficially. And by pretending, he is still (figuratively and literally) higher in status than Malvolio. You can also say he did use his eloquence to help him achieve this “promotion” because if he wasn’t a well-spoken chap already then no one would have picked him to play Sir Topas. So, in a round about way, he did use his eloquence in the same fashion that Richard III did.