Food for powder, food for powder. They’ll fill a pit as well as better.

This play is indeed one of Shakespeare's most powerful works. In terms of tone and atmosphere, it is much more diverse and naturalistic compared to its predecessor, Richard II. The scenes featuring Hal among the low-life in London are captivating and do a great deal to relieve the rigid and stuffy courtly ambiance present in some of Shakespeare's historical plays. The comedy also plays a significant role; and this play encompasses some of Shakespeare's highest and lowest forms of comedy, both of which are vividly embodied in the corpulent Falstaff.


I suspect that most readers will agree with Harold Bloom in considering Falstaff one of the bard's remarkable creations—although we might not go as far as to place him on the same level as Hamlet. Bloom is correct in viewing one's perception of Falstaff as a crucial factor in interpreting the play. Some people see in Falstaff the essence of carnival—the joyous embrace of all life's pleasures and the complete rejection of all social hypocrisies. Others, however, regard Falstaff as a corrupter and a boorish lout—a lazy and selfish fool.


For my part, I find myself vacillating between these two viewpoints. There is no disputing Falstaff's wit; and his soliloquy on the futility of honor is incredibly refreshing, cutting through all the political absurdities that drive the bloody conflicts. Nevertheless, I cannot help but think that if the Falstaffian attitude were too widely adopted, society itself would be unviable. Some degree of social restraint on our pleasure-seeking instincts is necessary to prevent us from becoming obese, drunken thieves. On the other hand, a healthy dose of the Falstaffian attitude can serve as a great antidote to the self-righteous nonsense that leads us into war.


In any event, Falstaff is not the only outstanding character in this play. Hotspur is a bundle of furious energy, an electrifying presence whenever he appears on stage. Prince Hal, although less charismatic, is more complex. From the very beginning, he already has an ambiguous relationship with Falstaff, a sort of icy affection or warm indifference. Indeed, Hal keeps everyone at a distance, and one senses a skeptical intelligence that is cautious about committing until the circumstances are precisely right. It is difficult to view his character's development as that of a wayward youth who learns to embrace his identity. His actions seem far too deliberate, his timing too perfect. Was he hoping to gain something by associating with Falstaff and his ilk?

One of these days, in the tradition of my yearly long read projects, I'm going to settle down with the complete works and give good ol' Shakespeare his due.

Until then, all I have is a hodgepodge of some amount of reading and far lesser amounts of witnessing, both recorded and live, a play here and there. My biases tend me towards the tragedies and more recently the histories when it comes to my pursuit of engaging balances of pathos and comprehension.

Seeing as how the modern Henriad adaptation, The Hollow Crown, is one of a few pieces of media I plan on physically owning at some point in the future, the series encompassing Richard II, Henry IV Parts 1 & 2, and Henry V are higher on my list than practically everything else I've as of yet not experienced.

Coming at the tetrology in such a half-winded manner, starting with the second and having no plans to go back and little to go forward to some of the meatier margins, is admittedly rather pathetic. But this was the play that appealed when I had to fulfill a chunk of a challenge read, and so this was the play I read.

Still, thanks to this edition being practically half supplementary material, I can ground my thoughts on less lackluster measures. The first thing I was mulling over after getting through the introduction and sinking my teeth into the marrow was the instance of two men, both patriarchs in their own right, and their respective, comparative sons.

This got me thinking about Hamlet, much as the carving up of the kingdom got me thinking about King Lear and the civil strife of Three Kingdoms. When it comes to Falstaff and co., I only care for the historical continuum that the last bit of analysis provided at the end of this edition delved into regarding morality plays and food cultures and such.

I've always resonated more with the serious, tragic themes of Shakespeare's works than the comical. While I respect the thematic balance he was aiming at, I wasn't soaked enough since birth in the cultural norms and grandiose educational standards to instinctively appreciate such.

Still, I got a bit here and there, and I do remember appreciating the recorded adaptation well enough. I'm looking forward to tackling Shakespeare's sequences of plays in the manner in which they best resonate with audiences, but I don't see it happening for another couple of years or so, after Richardson's Pilgrimage and perhaps another epic or two.

I've just started getting back into the idea of regularly reading white boys again. It's not that I look down on Shakespeare and co.: it's just that it's ridiculous that everyone who fits the demographic bill is considered a Shakespeare, and any lack of corresponding belief/obsession on the part of others is met with all the menacing outrage of a cult. So, easy does it, with plenty of space allotted to pursuing more global works. Shakespeare's been revered for nearly half a millennium: he can wait a little longer.

Glendower. I can call spirits from the vasty deep.

Hotspur. Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?

Perhaps the MOST chaotic PS night yet? LOL.

It seems like this particular night of the PS event was filled with more chaos and excitement than ever before. The atmosphere was electric, with people bustling around and all kinds of things happening.

However, I have to admit that Falstaff really didn't do it for me. He was just so boring af. I found myself yawning and looking around for something more interesting to catch my attention.

On the other hand, Hotspur was an absolute delight. I love him so much

Glendower: I can call the spirits from the vasty deep.

Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?

-act 3, scene 1

Now this is precisely why I engage with Shakespeare.

So far, my chronological journey through Will's plays has been a mix of frustration and illumination. Besides a few early gems like \\n  Romeo and Juliet\\n, \\n  A Midsummer Night's Dream\\n, and \\n  Richard III\\n, most of the Bard's finest and most renowned works are concentrated in the second half of his bibliography. Having completed 15 out of 38 plays, my average rating has lingered around three stars. Only the certainty of eventual greatness has sustained me through a series of notorious duds such as \\n  King John\\n, \\n  Titus Andronicus\\n, and the \\n  Henry VI\\n trilogy.

But all of this only makes it even more gratifying when I finally do catch a glimmer of true brilliance. Fortunately for me, 1 Henry IV offers more than just a glimmer. To be honest, most of the history plays live up to their reputation as dull and tiresome affairs, at least when compared to the much more flamboyant comedies and tragedies. However, with 1 Henry IV, Shakespeare finally discovers the genre's true strength: its ability to set aside the rigid tropes of both tragedy and comedy and find a satisfying—and arguably more realistic—balance between the two. (This kind of genre-bending seems to have been an ongoing interest for WS, as his problem plays suggest.)

The play is divided almost evenly between the low, earthy humor of John Falstaff and his tavern-haunting friends (their dialogue is mostly in prose) and the more elevated, aristocratic drama that unfolds between the eponymous king and his new rival, Henry "Hotspur" Percy (they converse in classic Shakespearean verse). The two sections are connected by Hal, the clever yet lazy prince who—quite understandably, I think—prefers to spend his youth getting drunk and playing tricks on Falstaff rather than hanging around the palace behaving as a future king. For the first couple of acts, these two tableaux might as well be taking place in separate worlds. But as Hotspur and King Henry prepare for civil war, the comedy and tragedy begin to blend, until finally even Hal and his pals have little choice but to get their act together.

The effect is somewhat like those moments in real life when something big and momentous occurs without warning—a family death, a natural disaster, or a shocking election—and suddenly going about your business as usual is no longer an option; the actual genre of your life, so to speak, changes. It's not really a surprise when people start dying around, say, Othello, because that's just the world Othello inhabits. It's more startling—and in a way, more sobering—when it happens to the comic relief.

But aside from all that highfalutin stuff, this is also just a really great play. The characters and relationships are vividly portrayed, the dialogue is excellent, and the core conflict is engaging and resonant. Henry IV follows directly after \\n  Richard II\\n, which means that if you've already read that one, you have a lot of useful context for the events here. And since there are still two more plays in the series after this, Will is under less pressure to cram the entire saga into just five acts. What I'm trying to say is that the play has room to breathe.

Still, if 1 Henry IV doesn't quite reach the heights of a \\n  Hamlet\\n or a Macbeth, it's only because that's not Shakespeare's intention. It feels like he's allowing himself to have fun here—the ridiculously disproportionate amount of stage time he gives to Falstaff seems to be proof of that—and with a good writer, a sense of fun is contagious. When I finished this play, I felt rejuvenated, with a renewed excitement for all the Shakespearean treasures that still lie ahead. That seems like a more-than-sufficient endorsement to me.

(See my review of Henry IV Part 2 here.)

“Henry IV Part 1” is a play that is often highly lauded due to Shakespeare’s masterful creation of Falstaff. It is an okay history play by the Bard, and Falstaff is indeed a dominant part of the text. However, I am not as enamored with Falstaff as many readers are.

In the Pelican edition of the play, Claire McEachern writes an Introduction that mainly focuses on the character of Prince Hal (who will become Henry V). This, along with some other key insights offered in the Intro, will assist your reading of the play.

I believe that “Henry IV Part 1” is really the first of three plays about Henry V. Shakespeare creates the character of Falstaff and the others of the Eastcheap Tavern to contrast and showcase the journey that Prince Hal begins in this play and concludes in “Henry IV Part 2”. This is not to undermine those characters at all. I think this play is dominated by Falstaff (who is a great comic creation, practically exuding humor, charm, and practicality with every word he speaks) and Hal’s antagonist Hotspur. If Shakespeare ever created a character who could be called dashing, then Hotspur fits the bill. He is a great character, full of fire and verse.

Act II:4 of the play is a highlight. It is excellent in performance and a nice articulation of the love and loathing that often coexist simultaneously in close relationships. The text as a whole is filled with many such balances, and it is a motif that works well for the piece.

If you are reading “Henry IV Part 1” for the first time, I highly recommend reading it immediately after reading “Richard II” as the events closely follow those of that play. It will enhance the text and your reading experience significantly if you do so.

As for the Pelican Shakespeare series, they are my favorite editions. The scholarly research is usually of the highest quality, and the editions themselves look great as an aesthetic unit. It looks and feels like a play, and this complements the text's contents admirably. The Pelican series was recently re-edited and contains the latest scholarship on Shakespeare and his time period. It is well-priced and well worth it.

I've come to terms with the fact that I will simply never have the same level of love for the Henry IV plays as I do for the rest of the histories. However, even I must admit that this particular play is objectively among the best. It is eminently theatrical, perhaps the most accessible to an audience with no knowledge of 14th/15th century English history. This includes people like me, before I became completely痴迷 with Richard III nearly 2 years ago. It also contains some of Shakespeare's most beautiful language.

I still don't like Falstaff, and I was hoping that Hal and Hotspur would have more opportunities to display homoerotic undertones towards each other. But, as they say, you can't win them all. Despite my personal preferences, I can't deny the excellence of this play. It has its own charm and significance within the Shakespearean canon. Maybe with more study and reflection, I'll come to appreciate it even more.

One of my favorite works of Shakespeare is Henry IV.

It commences with the militant resistance of Wales and Scotland, presenting a vivid picture of the动荡局势.

Ultimately, it contends with the profound rift between the aristocratic society and 'the rest', delving deep into the social hierarchy and its implications.

I recently had the pleasure of watching Gus van Sant's 'My Own Private Idaho', which is a truly phenomenal adaptation of Henry IV.

The film managed to capture the essence of the original story while adding its own unique twists and interpretations.

However, it was also extremely nice to revisit the original story and appreciate Shakespeare's masterful writing and the complex themes he explored.

Henry IV remains a timeless classic that continues to resonate with audiences today, offering valuable insights into human nature, power, and society.

While William Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1 offers a distinct experience compared to Richard II, it is truly a remarkable play!

The action commences shortly after the conclusion of Richard II, following Bolingbroke’s deposition of the now deceased Richard and his ascension to the throne as King Henry.

Although it still retains a serious aspect, this play undermines the legitimacy of the monarchy through its use of language. It achieves this most effectively through its portrayal of the heir to the throne, Prince Henry (famously known as Hal), and his disreputable and fallen companion, Sir John Falstaff, and the contrast between their comic ridicule and the solemn affairs of state.

Throughout the play, honor is intertwined with the morality of leadership. In this regard, rather than being a mere drunk or vagabond, Falstaff proclaims his honor, stating, “There lives not three good men unhanged in England, and one of them is fat and grows old” (Falstaff, Act 2 Scene 4).

Hal responds (in a playacting as his father) with little sentimentality or apparent affection, saying, “That trunk of humours, that bolting-hutch of beastliness, that swollen parcel of dropsies, that huge bombard of sack, that stuffed cloak-bag of guts, that roasted Manningtree ox with the pudding in his belly, that reverend Vice, that grey Iniquity, that father Ruffian, that Vanity in years?” (Prince Henry, Act 2 Scene 4).

Hal’s association with Falstaff and his motley crew casts doubt on his own moral authority. When Hal suggests banishing Falstaff, Falstaff replies that this would be detrimental to the prince, exclaiming, “No, my good lord, banish Peto, banish Bardolph, banish Poins, but for sweet Jack Falstaff, kind Jack Falstaff, true Jack Falstaff, valiant Jack Falstaff, and therefore more valiant, being as he is, old Jack Falstaff, banish not him thy Harry's company, banish not him thy Harry's company. Banish plump Jack, and banish all the world.” (Falstaff, Act 2, Scene 4).

Falstaff serves as a sort of teacher or mentor, yet he also embodies the recklessness of Hal’s youth. Prince Hal is capable of presiding over the debauched in the seedy parts of London, but is he truly capable of assuming his rightful position as the king of England? This is indeed one of Shakespeare’s greatest plays!

Henry IV marks the first appearance of Falstaff.

In Richard II, Henry IV has already shown himself to be a rather dour and uninteresting character. So, Shakespeare needed an enlivening character and environment to counterpoint the dull court.

Falstaff's command of language is a key higher than that of any other Shakespeare character. He is the most difficult character to understand because of the subtle nuances of his mind. You get the sense that the audience would have delighted in his irreverent wit as he was more recognisable to them than kings and queens. For the first time, Shakespeare is depicting a world familiar to the masses.

Falstaff's good sense is more complex than the wisdom imparted by Shakespeare's aristocrats.

However, there's a whiff of misogyny in his early depictions of women. Often they are portrayed as witches. Joan of Arc is ridiculed. Margaret and Humphrey's wife Eleanor are black-hearted scheming women with no redeeming qualities.

Although a very minor character, Mistress Quickly is more intriguing and provides insights into the sexual dynamics of lowlife Elizabethan England.

For the first time, Shakespeare is contrasting the life at court with the life of the masses. The implication is that Henry V's intimate acquaintance with the common folk made him a better king than his predecessors.

This contrast enriches the play and gives the audience a more comprehensive view of the society during that time.

4.4/5 stars, full review to come!

The Hotspurs mean everything to me. I'm truly passionate about this team.

The plot of their story on the field is engaging, scoring a solid 4/5. The characters, both the players and the coaching staff, are well-developed and interesting, also rated 4/5.

The pacing of their games is excellent, keeping me on the edge of my seat throughout, which earns them a 5/5 in this category.

The writing that describes their journey and the events surrounding the team is top-notch, a perfect 5/5.

Overall, my enjoyment of following the Hotspurs is high, with a score of 4/5. I can't wait to write a full review and share my thoughts in more detail about this amazing team.

I had an amazing professor during my undergraduate days. He managed to transfer his lifelong passion for Shakespeare to me, which was no easy feat considering how rebellious and impatient I was with difficult things. The author's language has always been excellent. When I look at my worn copy of the Collected Works, I see my old comments and realize that I often missed some notable details.

This time, I downloaded a new copy and started afresh. It was a lot of work. I stopped at every questionable word and tried to figure out its meaning in Shakespeare's time. More often than not, I was surprised at how much I had missed before. These nuances added up quickly.

I found that the serious parts were easier to read. Even then, Shakespeare would throw in a joke or two that might have made people laugh.

Now, when I look at my notebook, I see pages of words and phrases that delighted me. I cringe when I think about how I "read" this just to be prepared for a 2 PM class. But years later, I realized it meant a lot.

While Part I of Henry IV is easier than Part 2 in some ways, I spent hours studying the comic scenes to find new meaning. It was well worth it. Sometimes I felt like I was in the theater, watching the actors on stage and laughing from the fifth row.

Clearly, Shakespeare took more care in Part 2 to create more comic scenes for the audience. I think he wanted to make the play more popular and accessible. But the language is still universal.

I remember teaching Spanish-speaking kids in a private school when I was a graduate student. With some help, I convinced the principal to let my 8th graders see a Shakespeare play. I was eager to see if my theory about language was correct. It was a huge success. We even did it again for another play.

I watched the students' faces. At first, they were nervous and intimidated, but then they were in awe of this adult experience. The nervousness disappeared, and even the kids with a lower understanding of English were fixated on the stage, the actors, and especially the language. I actually heard them quoting lines to each other on the bus ride back to school.

I know I'm not really reviewing the plot and story here, but I'll leave that to better reviewers. For me, reading this again was like discovering the beauty in a work of art. It was like sitting in the Prado and marveling at Goya for an entire afternoon.

It's taken me a long time to see the colors, texture, and depth of this play. In many ways, it's like understanding history. Once you absorb the dates and facts, you can see the essence of the people. It's a big thing that I've finally seen the great art in it and I'm still affected by its presence and lasting impression.

In the end, I experienced the author's gift. He didn't do it to make his name famous or to have the story remembered. He did it so that the colors and sounds could exist, without names, without analysis, and without the overwhelming logic that we impose on most of our lives. Art is the victory of love over judgment. To understand this, you have to leave your ego at the door.

"Two stars keep not their motion in one sphere." Act V scene 4.

This is a story that involves multiple people. Analyzing it is quite a challenge for me as it is only half of a complete play. I'm not sure if Henry IV, Part 2 is a sequel, but I suspect it isn't. I'll do my best to summarize the events so far.

The play is about relationships in an ever-shrinking geometric shape. We start with the title character, and quickly meet three other characters, forming an almost-rectangle. We have King Henry and Percy at one end, and Prince Hal and Sir John Falstaff at the other. Prince Hal has a strained relationship with his father, so he looks up to Falstaff as a surrogate role-model. Meanwhile, King Henry has adopted Percy as a surrogate son because he has the qualities he wishes Hal had. However, this quickly falls apart when Percy rebels against the King.

This and the next play are about men making choices that affect them. I'm not sure if it's a story of three men or two, but for now, I'll focus on Hal. He has two paths and two people to choose from. On one hand, there's his serious, cold father, and on the other, there's the jolly, fun-loving Falstaff. We're foreshadowed at Act II scene 4 what choice Hal makes, and it's not much of a spoiler since there's a play called Henry V.

Falstaff is an interesting character. He can carry a scene like no other, but his personality isn't desirable to emulate. He was on thin ice with Hal, and his cowardly behavior at the battle sealed his fate. We do get a deep soliloquy from Falstaff on the nature of honor, which makes me wonder how he became a knight in the first place.

In the end, Hal's bravery in the battle restores him in his father's and the country's eyes. I'll pick up when I review part 2.

Falstaff: \\"Dost thou hear, Hal? thou know'st, in the state of innocency Adam fell; and what should poor Jack Falstaff do in the days of villainy? Thou see'st I have more flesh than another man; and therefore more frailty.\\"