Scan barcode
lovelycass's review against another edition
challenging
funny
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
Introduction is very long and boring 1997ed
readingisadoingword's review against another edition
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
This is the 13th play we've read as part of The Upstart Crows Shakespeare readalong and the 3rd in the sequence knows as The Henriad.
This play follows on from the King's victory at Shrewsbury at the end of Part 1. However there seems to be no continuity or recognition of the fact that in Part 1, Hal/Prince Henry had already showed signs of mending his wild ways.
In this installment the rebels are conspiring once again, the King lies dying and concerned for his wayward son. Falstaff is up to his usual shenanigans - swindling conscripts and generally causing havoc for those around him.
There is no real battle in this book and the tension comes from the King's dying state and trepidation around the behaviour of his heir, as well as from Falstaff's behaviour and plans of reunion with Prince Hal.
When the King dies and Hal succeeds to the throne and crown, he once again renounces his wild ways and promises to be a great leader. In ignorance of his newly reformed state, Falstaff eagerly plans his reunion with Hal, only to be sorely disappointed.
This play has an overall subdued feel. There's not a lot of action but there is quite a bit of speculation and tension and acknowledgment of past wrongs and future responsibilities. The ending is poignant and leaves the "great" character of Falstaff brought down by his new King's indifference.
I look forward to Henry V!
Some Quotes I liked:
"Rumour is a pipe
Blown by surmises, jealousies, conjectures
And of so easy and so plain a stop
That the blunt monster with uncounted heads,
The still-discordant wavering multitude,
Can play upon it."
"I'll tickle your catastrophe!"
"Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown."
This play follows on from the King's victory at Shrewsbury at the end of Part 1. However there seems to be no continuity or recognition of the fact that in Part 1, Hal/Prince Henry had already showed signs of mending his wild ways.
In this installment the rebels are conspiring once again, the King lies dying and concerned for his wayward son. Falstaff is up to his usual shenanigans - swindling conscripts and generally causing havoc for those around him.
There is no real battle in this book and the tension comes from the King's dying state and trepidation around the behaviour of his heir, as well as from Falstaff's behaviour and plans of reunion with Prince Hal.
When the King dies and Hal succeeds to the throne and crown, he once again renounces his wild ways and promises to be a great leader. In ignorance of his newly reformed state, Falstaff eagerly plans his reunion with Hal, only to be sorely disappointed.
This play has an overall subdued feel. There's not a lot of action but there is quite a bit of speculation and tension and acknowledgment of past wrongs and future responsibilities. The ending is poignant and leaves the "great" character of Falstaff brought down by his new King's indifference.
I look forward to Henry V!
Some Quotes I liked:
"Rumour is a pipe
Blown by surmises, jealousies, conjectures
And of so easy and so plain a stop
That the blunt monster with uncounted heads,
The still-discordant wavering multitude,
Can play upon it."
"I'll tickle your catastrophe!"
"Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown."
beforeviolets's review against another edition
This story really did NOT need to be separated into two parts. This was a whole lot of excess nonsense to flesh out Henry IV's death into a whole play tbh
zbmorgan's review against another edition
3.0
Still an important part of how the hapless prince Hal changes from a useless teen to the Henry V capable of the st. Crispin's day speech, this play actually has little of Henry in it (either IV or V) and belongs to Falstaff. This one is pretty tepid compared to Richard II, but there's a bit of a suprise twist at the end that makes it worth while.
p_t_b's review against another edition
5.0
Way better than part I-- the deathbed exchanges between the king and Hal are amazing. Still needs more falstaff.
thaurisil's review against another edition
3.0
The main plot of this play features a rebellion against King Henry IV which s eventually quashed. The king subsequently dies and his son Hal is crowned King Henry V. Scenes featuring the king and his sons alternate with scenes featuring Falstaff and his companions as they engage in merrymaking, drinking and cursing.
This is the third play in a quartet that also contains Richard II, Henry IV Part 1, and Henry V. I did not like this as much as the the first part of Henry IV. I read somewhere that Part 2 is fanfiction for those who liked Falstaff from Part 1, and the description is apt. The scenes featuring Falstaff are mainly there to inject humour. They do little to move the plot forward as nothing much happens in them except for bawdy joking and vain boasting, and even then, the jokes fall flat when Falstaff does not have Hal around to joke with. At the end, when Hal rejects Falstaff and imprisons him, I felt Falstaff had earned his just punishment for his arrogance and selfishness.
In both parts of the Henry IV plays, Henry IV is portrayed as a king who is fearful of being dethroned by the same people who supported him in his rise to the kingship, and thus oppresses them. While the previous play questioned whether such a king who reign securely and peacefully, this play suggests that Hal's reign will be more peaceful and he will have better support from the people, simply because he has gained the crown as an inheritance and a divine right rather than as the result of rebellion. His father and brothers do have doubts about his fitness for the crown, but he proves them wrong as he shows himself not to be the prodigal son he once was, but an upright king.
This is the third play in a quartet that also contains Richard II, Henry IV Part 1, and Henry V. I did not like this as much as the the first part of Henry IV. I read somewhere that Part 2 is fanfiction for those who liked Falstaff from Part 1, and the description is apt. The scenes featuring Falstaff are mainly there to inject humour. They do little to move the plot forward as nothing much happens in them except for bawdy joking and vain boasting, and even then, the jokes fall flat when Falstaff does not have Hal around to joke with. At the end, when Hal rejects Falstaff and imprisons him, I felt Falstaff had earned his just punishment for his arrogance and selfishness.
In both parts of the Henry IV plays, Henry IV is portrayed as a king who is fearful of being dethroned by the same people who supported him in his rise to the kingship, and thus oppresses them. While the previous play questioned whether such a king who reign securely and peacefully, this play suggests that Hal's reign will be more peaceful and he will have better support from the people, simply because he has gained the crown as an inheritance and a divine right rather than as the result of rebellion. His father and brothers do have doubts about his fitness for the crown, but he proves them wrong as he shows himself not to be the prodigal son he once was, but an upright king.
readingonfogo's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
funny
lighthearted
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.25
lizziestudieshistory's review against another edition
3.0
I'm reviewing both Henry IV plays here because they do need to be seen as a pair or continuation of the same story.
So, on the surface I should really love these plays - Shakespeare's histories are consistently high ranking on my list of favourites, with Richard II being my absolute favourite of his plays (it's just SO GOOD!) Henry IV explores a lot of the same themes as Richard II - power, duty, corruption of the state, etc. - with the addition of the difficult father-son dynamic between Henry IV and Prince Hal. The themes at the core of these plays are ones I usually love to explore, and Shakespeare handles them well (how could he not?!)
However, I just can't bring myself to love these plays and it's down to one character: FALSTAFF. If I could remove one character from English Literature it would be Falstaff. I would press the button to burn him out of the canon with GLEE. I'd even pay for the privilege! I'd be dancing around the pyre if I could burn him out of the book. Seriously, I loathe him that much. WHY would I possibly want to read about a debauched, drunken, old lecher with no redeeming qualities. I have no sympathy for him and find no enjoyment in his antics. I don't find his sections funny, appealing, or entertaining in the slightest. Perhaps I sound like a puritan over it, but I also don't care? He is deeply unpleasant. I know it's partly the point, I know WHY he's there, but that doesn't mean I have to enjoy his presence in the story. I wouldn't want to meet Falstaff in real like - so why would I want to read about him in fiction, particularly when he's not even compelling...
In addition to this, Henry IV part II in particular falls victim to Falstaff becoming the main character, he's certainly where Shakespeare wants to point our attention to. Personally, I'd rather read/watch the main drama of the fraught relationship between Henry and Hal and their attempts to consolidate their power/control over England - I really didn't sign up for the antics of a drunken buffoon. When we do get to explore the key drama and themes of the plays then they're wonderful, but the presence of Falstaff and the interminable focus on his "comedic" misadventures killed the interest I had in these plays very quickly.
So, on the surface I should really love these plays - Shakespeare's histories are consistently high ranking on my list of favourites, with Richard II being my absolute favourite of his plays (it's just SO GOOD!) Henry IV explores a lot of the same themes as Richard II - power, duty, corruption of the state, etc. - with the addition of the difficult father-son dynamic between Henry IV and Prince Hal. The themes at the core of these plays are ones I usually love to explore, and Shakespeare handles them well (how could he not?!)
However, I just can't bring myself to love these plays and it's down to one character: FALSTAFF. If I could remove one character from English Literature it would be Falstaff. I would press the button to burn him out of the canon with GLEE. I'd even pay for the privilege! I'd be dancing around the pyre if I could burn him out of the book. Seriously, I loathe him that much. WHY would I possibly want to read about a debauched, drunken, old lecher with no redeeming qualities. I have no sympathy for him and find no enjoyment in his antics. I don't find his sections funny, appealing, or entertaining in the slightest. Perhaps I sound like a puritan over it, but I also don't care? He is deeply unpleasant. I know it's partly the point, I know WHY he's there, but that doesn't mean I have to enjoy his presence in the story. I wouldn't want to meet Falstaff in real like - so why would I want to read about him in fiction, particularly when he's not even compelling...
In addition to this, Henry IV part II in particular falls victim to Falstaff becoming the main character, he's certainly where Shakespeare wants to point our attention to. Personally, I'd rather read/watch the main drama of the fraught relationship between Henry and Hal and their attempts to consolidate their power/control over England - I really didn't sign up for the antics of a drunken buffoon. When we do get to explore the key drama and themes of the plays then they're wonderful, but the presence of Falstaff and the interminable focus on his "comedic" misadventures killed the interest I had in these plays very quickly.
intoxicatedturtle's review against another edition
5.0
I think this is one of the bard's best works, although it does have its detractors. A good mix of comedy and drama and the theme of betrayal is very well done.