Capt. Mondo's World o' Mondo-ness

Book Review: John Julius Norwich's Shakespeare's Kings
Of all of Shakespeare's plays, I have a particular fondness for his 'History' plays. I've never had much use for his comedies, though I enjoy most of his Tragedies (give me a decent "Lear" over a "Much Ado" any day). As a long-time history buff, this interest in the history plays seems a natural inclination, though I think it was also spurred after seeing an excellent performance of Brian Bedford doing Richard II at Stratford during a high-school outing. (This weekend on the CBC I heard Richard Monette wisely say that "Your first Shakespeare performance is always the best performance you'll see of that play", which is undoubtedly true).

Oh yeah, the book. I must've started this one about a year or so ago -- for a long time it got relegated to bed-side reading, as it was pretty much a sure thing that it would send me to sleep. The history is good, but for once there’s too much detail. I remember reading incredulously one page that introduced at least a dozen various royal relatives at once, only a couple of which had any direct bearing on things. I remember closing the book at that point at putting it down again for months. But I came back to it and plowed through the end of that section and on to more interesting stuff (such as the end of the reign of Henry VI, Edward IV and the ever-unpopular Richard III). The detail is fascinating, but there's just too much of it that is peripheral to the main "story".

The basic structure of the book is interesting though: first a look at the history, and then a comparison to what Shakespeare wrote. We of course have access to more comprehensive sources than were available to Shakespeare (I think it would fascinating to look at the books that must have constituted his "library"), and the author of the book does himself credit by accepting the dramatic nature of Shakespeare's history plays. In fact, on the whole Shakespeare comes off pretty well, for the most part telescoping events held years apart, but on the whole doing a good job on the history front.

The book does make a few other missteps though. He starts off by looking at the life of Edward III. But there's no Shakespeare Edward III history play you ask incredulously (or are supposed to. ;-) Then the author makes the case that an anonymous Elizabethan play based on the life of Edward III was in fact by Shakespeare. He even includes the text of the play in an appendix of the book. I haven't read the play yet, so I can't make any comments as to its "Shakespearian-ness", but in truth it is there only to help set the background for the events covered in the accepted canon of Shakespeare's history plays. He also omits King John and Henry VIII, deciding to concentrate on the plays of the medieval Plantagenant kings. Again, another opportunity missed. The play Henry VIII is clearly a form of hagiography (about the only sensible thing Shakespeare could have done about this relative recent ruler for him) but I would have liked to have seen some commentary the history and the Tudor myth-making of the play.

A good book, but a real slog.

Baby Annie Milestones
Annie is no longer hitching, but is now crawling (both arms and legs in synch) so she can really motor now. She is also saying something akin to "thank you", and her quizzical "that?" -- always said in conjunction with her pointing at something -- has become much more distinct.

After mentioning to me that Annie was now truly crawling, Erika said she regretted not having a video of Annie hitching herself forward. So, hoping she might still do it, Erika got out the video camera. Instead she got another classic Annie moment: she goes over to the video cabinet, mayhem in mind. Erika says firmly: "no". Annie looks back, smiles a beatific smile at Mom as if to say "What, lil' ol' me?" and proceeds to open the video cabinet door. Cute but deadly. ;-)