the histories

Having read Richard III and Julius Caesar I like the histories but I haven't really had the chance to read enough of them. I couldn't really enjoy Caesar a lot, but I found Richard to be very interesting... if not disturbing in the least. I think the histories, like all of Shakespeare's other works have more to them than meets the first read. I mean Richard isn't just about one really really evil guy (*cough* Mr. Klimas) it's about evil as a whole, and Richard III wanting so desperately to be recognized. He feels cheated by nature and this gives him motive enough to want to seek retribution to all those who had wronged him. I think that this history in particular is sad... I don't empathize with Richard at all, and I certainly don't agree with what he did, but the man was nuts! The fact that this is a "history" in that it really happened, and Richard killed A LOT of people, and people so close to him no less, is sad; and to be honest vaguely horrifying. I think however that Shakespeare does portray the characters really well. The purpose of his works is to entertain a crowd more so than tell a factual, historical story. Therefore one thing about the histories in particular is building a character that people love to hate; Richard is certainly one of those characters. With his soliloquies and asides the audience learns more about Richard than we probably want to. We know of his evil plans, and the fact that he so easily deceives Clarence, Lady Anne, as well as everyone else is frightening. The fact that Shakespeare is able to create that intimacy with a character builds up the history as a play. As a whole it is difficult for me to comment on the genre because I've only really read one history. However, Richard was a good one to start with, in that it captures the history of the English strafe for power at the conclusion of the war of the roses, but also builds up a character that the audience can react to, in some way or another.