Can someone check this essay out - Richard III text response

[BigFunt]

Richard is “determined to prove a villain.”To what extent does he succeed?

As an audience we are immediately enthralled by Richard’s character. There is something guiltily compelling about his proclamations of villainy; throughout the play we most definitely realise he has become a villain. However, despite this success, Richard’s humanity is called into question. In Richard’s character, Shakespeare identifies the consequences of such dire villainy. For Richard, villainy is not just about his brutal ascension to the throne; it becomes a form “entertainment.” The theatricality and humour are just as much a part of his villainy as is his “butchery.” Ultimately however we the audience learns to despise Richard’s villainy; he becomes a diabolical grotesque which by the end of the play is a sad, lonely and pitiless figure.

Richard’s villainy manifests itself in numerous forms, not least his diabolical humour and deceit of his fellow characters. His interaction with Hasting’s is especially enthralling. In these instances, Shakespeare is almost hyperbolic in his depiction of Hasting’s naivety. In Act 3 Scene 4, we observe, Hasting’s reaffirming that he “in the duke’s behalf give my voice.” The dramatic irony is elucidated by the virtue that Richard makes the audience complicit with his “complots.” Furthermore as Hasting’s expresses his grief that “some men else that think themselves as safe” have been murdered we can’t help but humour ourselves at this aristocrats unwitting nature. Just as Richard plays the role of a friend to Hasting’s he is able to “counterfeit the deep tragedian” whilst he “guiles” the lord Mayor. These instances lend further credibility that Richard is able to change facades with an alacrity that catches his fellow characters off guard. These light-hearted gests are strikingly juxtaposed to a brutal Richard that has many characters “butchered.” Although Hasting’s gullibility is indeed amusing, Richard’s abrupt and decisive reaction is terrifying. This is enhanced with his jarring and abrupt language – “Thou art a traitor! Off with his head.”  Furthermore, when Richard’s subterfuge extends to the princes, he is cast in a new villainous light. In Act 3 scene 1, the “sweet prince” is contrasted against the “diffused infection of a man.” Where Richard uses “sugared words” to warn the Princes of “false friends,” his true attentions are revealed in his ubiquitous asides. When Richard slyly comments “Short summers lightly have a forward spring,” the effect is chilling. Richard truly is a villain. It is through his ability to manipulate his fellow characters to see his goals come to fruition that reveals to us Richard is indeed succeeded in being “subtle, false and treacherous.”

Shakespeare’s machiavel Richard is a villain who is misanthropic and dismissive of affirmative moral paradigms. For an Elizabethan audience, his villainy extends past his brutal acts of murder; his abandonment of God and misogyny of women cast him in opposition to established societal beliefs. Richard is ostracised by the very virtue of his outer appearance. His villainy is communicated not only through his actions but indeed the vivid descriptions of his “scarce half made up” body. In a Yorkist society, his outer deformities would have been symbolic of inner villainy. In this instance, Richard’s inner villainy manifests itself in his opposition to morality. Shakespeare emphasizes Richard’s admirable Godless stoicism through Richmond. Richmond is a character that has “God and good angels on his side” and via the scenic construction of Act 5, the audience is allowed to juxtapose the two characters. Where the ghosts in Richmond’s dreams want him to “live and flourish,” Richard is perturbed by spirits that crave for him to “despair and die.” Richard is observed explicitly trivialising religion in his use of “two props of virtue.” His use of the cardinals is for a cause that is bereft of any religious motivations. This “bunch-backed toad’s” manipulation of religion would have appalled an Elizabethan audience. His misogyny too adds to his villainy and is communicated to the audience in his wooing of Anne. In his exultant soliloquy following his wooing, he claims to have “won” Anne. The word “won” evokes game like connotations, and illustrates Richard’s views that women are only fit to “entertain” more worthy men and to be used as per one’s desires. Just as Richard succeeds in his goals to be villain by virtue of his brutal acts, he also becomes a villain because of his misogyny and abandonment of God.

Despite all that Richard achieves, he perhaps fails to maintain his villainy. Ultimately, he becomes a far cry from his normally “ingenious, capable and forward” self. Richard’s construction of a world of conflict and villainy is detrimental to his very humanity. There is a distinct inevitability of this vice figure; although he succeeds in changing “merry meetings” to “dreadful marches,” his “soul” is seemingly torn apart by the atrocities he has committed. We are first offered an insight into Richard’s Psychomachia in Act 1 Scene 4, where the murderers are perhaps a physical representation of Richard’s “tempest of the soul”. The murderer’s dialogue is symptomatic of Richard’s final soliloquy. This is evidenced in the short phrases – “Soft he wakes. Strike! No, we’ll reason with him.” The prevailing sense of indecision shows the audience the conflicting nature of villainy and goodness. Just as in this scene, the murderers choose to kill Clarence, in Richard too, his evil side wins out. It is perhaps symbolic that the battle scene is so short; the real battle does not take place on the field but inside Richard’s mind. This is evidenced in Richard’s final soliloquy, where it begins with a war like atmosphere – “Give me another horse! Bind up my wounds! As Brakenbury astutely recognizes, Richard has achieved “outward honour for an inward toil.” The downfall of Richard and the parallel rise of the magnanimous Richmond, show the audience the inevitable result of Richard’s villainous nature. Whilst Richard succeeds in becoming a villain he is unable to maintain his ascendency, and is hence led to a sad and lonely end. His villainy is fleeting.

Richard’s villainy is not simply contained in his acts of “butchery.” They instead evolve into being more psychological in nature. His villainy rests within his lack of morals and his desires to morph “smooth faced peace” into eternal conflict. Richard’s demented views upon this world make him a villain but he harbours costs to his humanity. Therefore, although he may have achieved villainy, it is only momentary; his tortured soul can no longer handle his destructive, terrifying and wicked self.

a mark out of ten would be goooooood

[Panicmode]

Not knowing the text, I can only offer my opinion on the use of language.

Notes:

- Excellent integration of quotes !!
- Strong topic sentences and mini-conclusions within each para link argument to main contention
- Wide and extensive vocabulary used in the right context.
- Perhaps more obvious links between paragraphs aiding in flow?


From what I gather this is a high end response looking at an 8-9/10

[BigFunt]

thanks for the help,..

anyone who has read Richard out there, I would be super greatful to hear some criticism

even those who haven't, please comment on the flow.

[cltf]

Im curious if you wrote this with or without the text next to you, and if you did this under timed conditions.

Having read the text and am doing for the exam, I only have few things, and this is purely my opinion, assessors may see it differently

Your paragraphs, contain too many points/ examples, it becomes very confusing to follow, as you jump from part to part in the play. The essay would flow much better if A) you pick a specific point and explored it more thoroughly or B) more paragraphs but then you run the risk of having too short paragraphs.

What I like is:
You have taken an abstract approach to the prompt.
Your quoting is very good, especially since you don't use the run of the mill quotes that everyone's using.

if this was produced in the exam you are looking at 9-10/10 probably a closer to a 10.

[BigFunt]

I did it in 65 minutes in tiimed conditions, without the play


I hand wrote it then typed it up so I could get some feedback.

[burbs]

Disclaimer: I've been told I'm a bit harsh in the way I word my corrections. Apologies in advance. It's partially due to trying to do it in a timely manner because... well we don't have that much time left.


As an audience we are immediately enthralled by Richard’s character. This is too short to begin with, and too simplistic. Also as the prompt is not directly about the audience I feel it is a bit too generic as well. It's true - we are immediately enthralled, but I wouldn't have that as my opening line. There is something guiltily compelling careful with 'guiltily' because it is a bit subjective. Again, I know what you mean about his proclamations of villainy; throughout the play we most definitely too colloquial realise he has become a villain. However, despite this success, Richard’s humanity is called into question. In Richard’s character, Shakespeare identifies the consequences of such dire villainy. For Richard, villainy is not just about his brutal ascension to the throne; it becomes a form “entertainment.” could be merged into fewer sentences The theatricality and humour are just as much a part of his villainy as is his “butchery.” Ultimately however we the audience learns to despise Richard’s villainy; he becomes a diabolical grotesque which by the end of the play is a sad, lonely and pitiless figure. Hmmm... I wouldn't say that exactly. His bravery at Bosworth Field depicts him as heroic, and the contrast between him and Richmond shows him to still be quite interesting.

Decent introduction, just those small things

Richard’s villainy manifests itself in numerous forms, not least his diabolical humour and deceit of his fellow characters. good His interaction with Hasting’s Just Hastings, no apostrophe is especially enthralling you just used this word in the introduction. wait a paragraph at least. How about compelling or mesmerising?. In these instances, Shakespeare is almost hyperbolic hmm in his depiction of Hasting’s naivety. In Act 3 Scene 4, we observe, Hasting’s reaffirming that he “in the duke’s behalf give my voice.” The dramatic irony is elucidated by the virtue that Richard makes the audience complicit with his “complots.” Furthermore as Hasting’s expresses his grief that “some men else that think themselves as safe” have been murdered we can’t help but humour ourselves at this aristocrats unwitting nature. the quotes are well integrated, but a bit odd due to their wording. Just keep this in mind Just as Richard plays the role of a friend to Hasting’s he is able to “counterfeit the deep tragedian” whilst he “guiles” the lord Mayor. These instances lend further credibility that Richard is able to change facades with an alacrity that catches his fellow characters off guard. These light-hearted gests? are strikingly? juxtaposed to a brutal Richard that has many characters “butchered.”  Although Hasting’s gullibility is indeed amusing, Richard’s abrupt and decisive reaction is terrifying. This is enhanced with his jarring and abrupt language – “Thou art a traitor! Off with his head.”  Furthermore, when Richard’s subterfuge extends to the princes, he is cast in a new villainous light. In Act 3 scene 1 acts are not necessary for VCAA, the “sweet prince” is contrasted against the “diffused infection of a man.” Where Richard uses “sugared words” to warn the Princes of “false friends,” his true attentions are revealed in his ubiquitous asides. When Richard slyly comments “Short summers lightly have a forward spring,” the effect is chilling stop saying the effect on the audience in a way that is so subjective, be a bit more subtle about it. Richard truly is a villain. hmmm merge with other sentences It is through his ability to manipulate his fellow characters to see his goals come to fruition that reveals to us Richard is indeed succeeded in being “subtle, false and treacherous.” good link

Shakespeare’s mMachiavellian Richard is a villain who is misanthropic and dismissive of affirmative moral paradigms too many long words in one sentence when shorter ones could be used. It does show your intelligence, but complex words should be given some room to breath so that writing doesn't appear pretentious. For an Elizabethan audience, his villainy extends past his brutal acts of murder; his abandonment of God and misogyny of women cast him in opposition to established societal beliefs. wait why is this specifically for the Elizabethan audience? Richard is ostracised by the very virtue of his outer appearance. His villainy is communicated not only through his actions but indeed the vivid descriptions of his “scarce half made up” body. In a Yorkist society, his outer deformities would have been symbolic of inner villainy. In this instance, Richard’s inner villainy manifests itself in his opposition to morality. good, quote could help too Shakespeare emphasizes Richard’s admirable Godless stoicism through Richmond. Richmond is a character that has “God and good angels on his side” and via the scenic construction of Act 5, the audience is allowed to juxtapose we aren't allowed to juxtapose them, Shakespeare does juxtapose them as the playwright. We witness his juxtaposition. That's my take on the words anyway. Also you've used this word too many times already. the two characters. Where the ghosts in Richmond’s dreams want him to “live and flourish,” Richard is perturbed by spirits that crave for him to “despair and die.” Richard is observed explicitly trivialising religion in his use of “two props of virtue.” His use of the cardinals is for a cause that is bereft of any religious motivations. This “bunch-backed toad’s” manipulation of religion would have appalled an Elizabethan audience. There is a lot of discussion about the audience. Yes, some is justified but every line is being related back to it. This could almost fit another prompt. His misogyny too adds  to his villainy expressionand is communicated to the audience in his wooing of Anne. In his exultant soliloquy following his wooing, he claims to have “won” Anne. The word “won” evokes game like connotations, and illustrates Richard’s views that women are only fit to “entertain” more worthy men and to be used as per one’s desires. very language analysis-y Just as Richard succeeds in his goals to be villain by virtue of his brutal acts, he also becomes a villain because of his misogyny and abandonment of God.  again, good linking back.

Despite all that Richard achieves, he perhaps Take a stance fails to maintain his villainy. Ultimately, he becomes a far cry from his normally “ingenious, capable and forward” self. Richard’s construction of a world of conflict and villainy is detrimental to his very humanity. There is a distinct inevitability of this vice figure; although he succeeds in changing “merry meetings” to “dreadful marches,” his “soul” is seemingly torn apart by the atrocities he has committed. We are first offered an insight into Richard’s Psychomachia in Act 1 Scene 4, where the murderers are perhaps are they or aren't they? again, take a stance a physical representation of Richard’s “tempest of the soul”. The murderer’s dialogue is symptomatic of Richard’s final soliloquy. This is evidenced in the short phrases – “Soft he wakes. Strike! No, we’ll reason with him.” poorly integrated The prevailing sense of indecision shows the audience the conflicting nature of villainy and goodness. tick Just as in this scene, the murderers choose to kill Clarence, in Richard too, his evil side wins out. expression It is perhaps symbolic that the battle scene is so short; the real battle does not take place on the field but inside Richard’s mind. hmmm... time is skewed throughout the play though. This is evidenced evident in Richard’s final soliloquy, where it begins with a war like atmosphere – “Give me another horse! Bind up my wounds!" hold on - dont have my book on me but i dont remember this from the final soliloquy. correct me if im wrong but the final soliloquy is after the dreams As Brakenbury astutely recognizes, Richard  has achieved “outward honour for an inward toil.” The downfall of Richard and the parallel rise of the magnanimous Richmond, show the audience the inevitable result of Richard’s villainous nature. Whilst Richard succeeds in becoming a villain he is unable to maintain his ascendency, and is hence led to a sad and lonely end. His villainy is fleeting. this is unecessary and way too short. It weakens the paragraph. better to end on the line before

Richard’s villainy is not simply contained in his acts of “butchery.” this is the third time you've used this quote They instead evolve into being more psychological arguable they are like this from the start, also I'm a bit confused by your use of the word psychological in nature. His villainy rests within his lack of morals and his desires to morph “smooth faced peace” into eternal conflict. Richard’s demented views upon this world make him a villain but he harbours costs to his humanity personal thing - im hesitant to say that richard has humanity to begin with.. Therefore, although he may have achieved villainy, it is only momentary; his tortured soul can no longer handle his destructive, terrifying and wicked self.

not bad at all. you are using too many pretentious words too often, and you are reusing the same quotes over and over. Just have a few more up your sleeve and let it breathe more. Note the corrections.

Sorry if it comes as harsh, but this should still be around an 8. Well done, your integration of quotes is very good.

[BigFunt]

thanks,

for discussion of the play:

you talk about how "His bravery at Bosworth Field depicts him as heroic, and the contrast between him and Richmond shows him to still be quite interesting."

don't you think that his finally soliloquy shows him to be frail underneath the "armour" he has constructed for himself. Sure, he becomes more resolute, but he is still shown to have an underlying "tempest" of the soul. I think Anne's discussion of his "timorous dreams" furthers this idea. He is almost subconsciously troubled.

On a another note, what do you think Clarence's dream earlier on alludes to? I've been thinking about it, there are so many readings you can take.

Talking about humanity, If you look at Richard III in isolation then yes, he may not have humanity to begin with, but when you look at it context, you have to appreciate the fact that it is impossible to claim that he never had one. I know that we are studying this play, but acknowledging context is also quite important.

I was wondering, do you have any of your top range essays you could share?



Also. I appreciate the concise nature of your criticism, its much more beneficial that the crap teachers or other people spin you.

[burbs]

thanks,

for discussion of the play:

you talk about how "His bravery at Bosworth Field depicts him as heroic, and the contrast between him and Richmond shows him to still be quite interesting."

don't you think that his finally soliloquy shows him to be frail underneath the "armour" he has constructed for himself. Sure, he becomes more resolute, but he is still shown to have an underlying "tempest" of the soul. I think Anne's discussion of his "timorous dreams" furthers this idea. He is almost subconsciously troubled.

On a another note, what do you think Clarence's dream earlier on alludes to? I've been thinking about it, there are so many readings you can take.

Talking about humanity, If you look at Richard III in isolation then yes, he may not have humanity to begin with, but when you look at it context, you have to appreciate the fact that it is impossible to claim that he never had one. I know that we are studying this play, but acknowledging context is also quite important.

I was wondering, do you have any of your top range essays you could share?

yeah talking to someone who is much better than I am, they disagreed with a few of my markings... I think he's going to post his critique of my critique, if not I'll share it with you in PM. Most of my markings came down to my personal preference on the style - he says its fine though so you can disregard them. Especially considering your SAC marks this year, they must work. Also he tells me that Machiavel is fine to say.

yeah you're right about about him being frail in that sense, that's really just a reading on my part. didnt mean to impose it on you rather than just suggest it as another way of seeing it.

you don't want my essays, my style is too different and more formulaic in comparison to yours.

edit: also apparently evidenced is ok, did a quick google. This is why you don't get current yr12s to mark your work

[BigFunt]

no worries,


yeah that I would love to see that other guy's critique, inbox me, or he can just post on here that's fine,

i didn't get 100/100 on both semesters, i got 97 and 99,  im assuming they will round to 100

given several examples from last year.

[burbs]

He said he would type it up, but I'll inbox it regardless. 97 and 99 still obliterates my scores, and as long as your cohort is fine I'd be surprised if it didn't.

[EvangelionZeta]

Yeah, I won't repeat everything since Burbs has pm'd you everything, but my overall comments (on both you and Burbs):

*I would say that your style is fine, and a breath of fresh air, even.  Burbs is marking from the perspective of a very conservative (style-wise) marker - I'd say you're usually safe from them, but just to be on the safe side, don't get TOO rhetorical with stuff.  That said, some of Burbs' other comments (like your sentences being too short or not "fulfilling their roles") can be somewhat disregarded, or at least in my opinion.

*Burbs is definitely right, however, in some of his other comments, particularly in your language being a bit ambiguous or loose sometimes, or the fact that you could tighten up some of your phrases. 

The other thing that I didn't tell Burbs which I noticed just then in relation to his criticism is the line where he says "The word “won” evokes game like connotations, and illustrates Richard’s views that women are only fit to “entertain” more worthy men and to be used as per one’s desires".  I'd disagree with this, and would add that I used this style of analysis myself in my Richard essays (I got two 10s for Text Resposne on the exam).  It's more a Lit thing clearly, but it still works in English.

Also, as a final note, I'd just like to clarify in relation to my disagreements with Burbs and state that he's more than qualified to critique work.  I'm currently his tutor (lol), and he's definitely one of my best students - beyond that, I'd also recommend him as a tutor next year for anybody who wants help.  I just think I'm also qualified to stand in and correct him, considering that I'm partially why he disagrees with some of the things you've done (since I taught him et al), and because I've had a (obviously - he's in year 12!) much more tutoring experience.  :p