Chapter 34: JKR & Richard III

[Caius Marcius]

No: HPFGUIDX 14189

(Oh, you who moderate betwixt the topical and off-topic, grant unto 
me this boon that my brief but instructive lesson may be perused at 
the Yahoo Group with a thousand and forty-two readers, not the one 
with all the dumb Tom Swift jokes)

OK, I'm switching over to my Professor Binns' mode now: The 
similarity between the "Priori Incantatem" Chapter of GoF and
Richard III's ghostly visitors has often been remarked upon. I 
thought it might be instructive to look at some of the differences in 
these two scenes as well.

Just to summarize the scene in Shakespeare (skip to the next 
paragraph if you already know it, or go to 
http://tech-two.mit.edu/Shakespeare/richardiii/richardiii.5.3.html
   Richard III, who has hacked his way to the English throne in a 
most  Voldemortian manner, leads his army to Hastings as he prepares 
to meet the rebel forces led by the Earl of Richmond. .  On opposite 
sides of the stage, each leader rallies his troops, and then retires 
for the night. On the eve of the battle Richard has a dream in which 
the ghosts of his several victims march in to cast their 
condemnations upon him and to bestow their blessings upon Richmond.  
Upon waking, Richard's thoughts are full of guilt and foreboding.
On the next day's battle, his army is defeated, and Richard is
killed by Richmond, who will now reign as Henry VII. 

(1)	One major difference is that in Shakespeare, the apparitions 
appear in Richard's dream; in JKR, this is a real, though 
nightmarish, event. 

(2)  Shakespeare has Richard's victims in chronological order
(from first to final victim); JKR intended to do this in reverse 
(from latest on back), but of course got the sequence a bit 
confused.  (A Point for  Shakespeare)

(3) In JKR's narrative, both Harry and Voldemort are fully
developed characters. But while Richard III is one of Shakespeare's 
most brilliantly realized creations,  the characterization Richmond 
is constructed from the thinnest and dullest of cardboard, being 
merely a very very dull Good Guy. This makes a great difference in 
our reactions to the ghosts'appearence.  We are very interested in
what the ghosts have to say to both Harry and Voldemort, and we very 
interested in what Richard's ghosts have to say to him; but we
could care less what they have to say to Richmond.  Every version I've
seen of Richard III (both stage and screen) has always cut the 
ghosts' speeches to Richmond, and with good reason.  (A Point for JKR)

(4) We see Voldemort react to the ghosts with  fear. Although we see 
no more of him after Harry escapes, we can easily imagine that his 
emotions would turn thereafter to humiliation, rage, hatred, 
increased thirst for vengeance, etc.  The last thing we would expect 
from Voldy would be an attack of conscience, and a sudden (if 
temporary) return of moral clarity, which is of course Richard's 
reaction.  

My conscience hath a thousand several tongues,
And every tongue brings in a several tale,
And every tale condemns me for a villain.

For a long time, it seemed to me that this manifestation of 
conscience in seemingly conscience-less man was an improbable 
contrivance on Shakespeare's part, but I made the mistake of that 
many others have as well: reading Richard III as an independent work, 
rather than the final play of a four-part cycle which chronicles the 
War of the Roses. (the first three parts being the three Henry VI 
plays). When we first meet Richard as a young boy in 2 Henry VI, he 
is presented a dutiful and attentive son, and as a loyal and devoted 
brother.  The close-knit  bonds and the bantering between Richard and 
his brothers Edward and Clarence throughout these plays are as 
enjoyable as the exchanges between the Weasleys.  Richard does not 
reveal his Evil Overlord aspirations until midway through in 3 Henry 
VI (Act III, Scene III):

I'll slay more gazers than the basilisk (!)
I'll play the orator as well as Nestor,
Deceive more slily than Ulysses could,
And, like a Sinon, take another Troy.
I can add colours to the chameleon,
Change shapes with Proteus for advantages,
And set the murderous Machiavel to school.
Can I do this, and cannot get a crown?
Tut, were it farther off, I'll pluck it down

(interestingly, the real Machiavelli, born in 1469, was still a child 
when these events were unfolding) Assuming that we came to the play 
without prior knowledge of the characters and the history,
Richard's declaration comes as a complete surprise.  So Richard's 
attack of conscience at the end is well-founded: the sight of the 
ghosts puts him briefly back in touch with the kinder loyaler part of 
his spirit that he was forced to suppress in order to satisfy his 
royal ambitions. 

(5) Voldemort v. Harry is a stark contest between Evil and Good. 
Although Richard III may seem to play that way, it's more like
Smart v. Dumb. We  root for Richard to succeed in the same way as we 
root for Hannibal Lecter. Also, the three Henry VI plays show that no 
one on either side of the War of the Roses is innocent.  Richard 
seems to treat the deposed Queen Margaret with a contemptible 
meanness (I,iii), but after reading her savage torture and execution 
of Richard's father in 3 Henry VI, (I,iv) I marveled that Richard
was able to be as civil as he was. 

  - CMC

http://www.shakespeare.handshake.de/