Regular price: $24.95
Buy Now with 1 Credit
Buy Now for $24.95
The material treated in the text is interesting to someone who wants to know the history behind Shakespeare's "history" plays.
Although he has a British accent, the reader is not skilled: his delivery is very choppy, each sentence cut into four word bits regardless of meaning, and words are mispronounced.
Given the quality of the content I think a re-do is in order.
4 of 4 people found this review helpful
This is an excellent guide to the historical background of (most of) Shakespeare's history plays. It covers the two "tetralogies" - one covering the reigns of Richard II, Henry IV, and Henry V; the other, the reigns of Henry VI, Edward IV, and Richard III. Whether they were in fact designed as tetralogies is still being debated. They were certainly not written in the order of the events they describe.
The author, John Julius Norwich, has taken advantage of recent interest in the play Edward III - Shakespeare may have written a couple of scenes in this collaborative play - to round out his account. This is useful because all of the major participants in the plays were descendants of Edward. In essence, the plays comprise a history of the Hundred Years War and the War of the Roses.
It's a lot of ground to cover. Norwich is a capable writer of narrative, and his accounts of the various reigns are full of useful and interesting detail. He follows the story of each reign with a discussion of the corresponding play, with an emphasis on how closely or not-so-closely Shakespeare follows the history. This sounds straightforward, but it isn't. First there's what happened; then there's what we know about what happened; then there's what was known during Shakespeare's lifetime, often based on inadequate and contradictory sources; and then, finally, there are the changes he made for dramatic purposes.
I've read several books attempting to bring all these things together, and they all suffer from the same occasional lapses into incoherence or repetition. Norwich has the advantage of a lively style and a broad and humane interest in the events being described. He does a better job than most juggling the various components.
Shakespeare is a tough customer when it comes to history. He plays fast and loose with the facts. Two handy examples are Hotspur and Joan of Arc. Hotspur, the impulsive rebel of the first Henry IV play, was old enough to be Prince Hal's father; but Shakespeare, for purposes of dramatic comparison, makes them roughly the same age. Joan of Arc, who ranges through the first Henry VI play with great energy and malice, died not long after Charles VII was crowned in Rheims; but Shakespeare has her outlasting both the Earl of Bedford (who died 4 years after Joan) and John Talbot, the English general, who outlived her by over 20 years. How else could he have her exult over them as they died, with such malevolent (and magnificent) rhetoric?
There is also a great deal of telescoping of events - two visits to London combined into one, for example. A scene might begin, historically, in one year and end with events that occurred five years later. And sometimes, especially in the earlier plays, Shakespeare just makes stuff up: having the English lose and then recapture a city that played no role in the war at all. Trying to relate these skips and jumps to the actual historical record can frustrate the most ardent commentator.
Yet Norwich pulls it off, creating a work that is an interesting historical narrative in its own right, and also provides an illuminating survey of the plays.
A word about the narrator. John Curran is for the most part effective; I was able to listen to the audiobook for an hour or two at a time without flagging. But he has an odd reading tic. He inserts pauses that can make one sentence sound like several. This is NOT an actual quote, but it gives a sense of the style: a sentence like, "He was not the most competent of kings, but he had a wealth of tradition at his command," comes out sounding like this: "He was not. The most competent of kings. But he had. A wealth of tradition. At his command."
Staccato as the narration may be, and challenging as Shakespeare's tangled chronology is, I really enjoyed the book and hope to listen to it again - after re-reading the history plays themselves.
5 of 7 people found this review helpful
When deciding whether to buy a title I'll often look for a book review online so when I came across a slightly sniffy New York Times review which call this "Lively if not particularly scholarly" I was sold. This is highly engaging and well written without being too demanding which is what I was in the mood for over the Easter break. Norwich paints lively, opinionated portraits of the movers and shakers of medieval England; in each case going on to show us how Shakespeare wrote about them a few generations after the fact. It's a device that worked really well for me; partly because Norwich is good at bringing historical characters to life in a convincing way through the little we know about them and also because we get an insight into the shifting politics of the period by seeing what Shakespeare could and could not safely write about a hundred or more year later under the Tudors.
If you enjoy medieval history this won't break particularly new ground but it's well written, well narrated, it brings characters and the period to life and there's enough in it to enjoyably hold your attention without taxing the brain too much.
6 of 6 people found this review helpful
John Julius Norwich is a former diplomat and, as they say, an author and broadcaster. Radio 4 listeners of a certain age may remember his outstanding contributions to 'Round Britain Quiz'. He has written various books on history and on the arts, and so is ably qualified for this work in which he compares Shakespeare's major history plays with the actual historical events.
In particular, he makes the best case I have heard for bad king Richard III - that he really did have his nephews murdered. We'll never know for sure of course; for me, the politics don't work with Richard as the killer but they work very well for Henry VII.
JJ Norwich does an excellent job, which is more than I can say for the narrator, who, in addition to a number of pronunciation gaffes (fief pronounced fife for example), places pauses in entirely unnatural places in his sentences. It's as if he's been given randomly chopped up sentences to read - and it gets astonishing annoying after a while.
There is so much bad pronunciation in audio books that I have to wonder who edits this stuff.
2 of 2 people found this review helpful
Would you try another book written by John Julius Norwich or narrated by John Curran?
I have listened to and read other titles by John Julius Norwich and found them interesting and engaging, there is no reason I would not try another unless it was read by John Curran.
Curran seems read a line at a time, this results in a blah blah blah pause, blah blah blah pause rythem to the delivery regardless of punctuation, sense or poetry.
It seems highly irresponsible to set this reader loose on Shakespeare.
Would you be willing to try another one of John Curran’s performances?
Was Shakespeare's Kings worth the listening time?
Yes but it could have been a much better experience with a competent reader.