I was pleasantly surprised by how interesting and engaging the writing is.

At first, I had the impression that it would be difficult to understand. However, as I delved into it, I found that it was actually very enjoyable.

The author has a unique way of presenting ideas and stories that captured my attention from the very beginning.

The language used is vivid and descriptive, making it easy for me to visualize the scenes and characters in my mind.

Moreover, the content is not only entertaining but also thought-provoking, which makes me want to read more and explore further.

Overall, I am very impressed with this writing and look forward to reading more from the author in the future.

It may not be immediately obvious to people, when reading something like Drug Gang, but William Shakespeare has been a major and important influence on my writing.

As an author, I have taken on board a lot of lessons from Shakespeare in terms of structure, story and character arcs. His works are like a treasure trove of literary techniques and inspiration.

Henry IV, Part 1 has always been my favourite work of Shakespeare. Primarily, this is because of the gradual transformation that Prince Hal goes through. We see him evolving from a rebellious and irresponsible youth to a noble and heroic leader.

Also, Falstaff is an amazing character, providing plenty of comic relief. His antics and witty remarks add a light-hearted touch to the play.

The play manages to perfectly combine comedic elements, drama and an amazing story of a personal journey from wild and chaotic tearaway to triumphant hero. It shows how a person can change and grow, and how even the most unlikely of characters can have a redemptive arc. Shakespeare's masterful storytelling and character development continue to inspire me and influence my own writing.

**A Prince Gone Wild**

Thank God for Youtube. Reading a Shakespearian play that one has not seen on stage or screen can be a challenging task. In fact, reading any play not witnessed in performance can be difficult as they are meant to be acted out, not just read. Printed plays seem to complement performances rather than replace them. So, when I came to read this play, I searched Youtube and found the BBC versions of the history plays available for viewing. After finishing the play, I watched it, and it truly enhanced my appreciation.

Henry IV Part One follows Richard II and begins after Henry Bollingbrook (now Henry IV) causes the death of Richard II in a fit of anger. During this period of English history, England was in the Hundred Years War with France, and Henry and Richard were considered weak kings as the war in France was not pursued. At the start of the play, Henry calls off a pilgrimage to the Holy Land to deal with rebellions in Scotland and Wales.
The problem wasn't just that Henry had usurped the throne, but also that he had to handle rebellions in Scotland and Wales. His first decision alienates his former friends when he refuses to seek the release of an Englishman due to a marriage pact with Owen Gwendoler. As a result, these former friends rebel against him and side with his enemies.
There are also family problems as Henry's son, Henry (who will become Henry V), has fallen in with the tavern crowd at the Boars Head Tavern in Eastcheap. The tavern crowd is led by the infamous Falstaff, a character with a legendary status in English Literature. While Falstaff provides comic relief, he also has an important role as he has taken the King's son, just as Owen Glendower has taken the King's lords.
The robbery scene is significant as it has a major impact. In those days, robbery, especially armed robbery, was a serious offence punishable by death. Henry gets away with it only because he is the Prince of Wales. Act II, Scene IV is the longest and best scene as it is the turning point for Hal's life. It begins with merrymaking and ends with Hal confessing to his father and turning around to become the Prince of Wales.
Owen Glendower was a Welsh rebel at war with the English. He is portrayed as a sorcerer in the play, similar to how Richard III is demonised by Shakespeare. Glendower only appears in a few scenes but is the focus of the part of the play not dominated by Falstaff. In the end, Henry brings order back to his family and the kingdom during the Battle of Shrewsberry, after which the play suddenly ends, leading to anticipation for part 2.

4.5/5 stars

I truly had an amazing experience with this.

It was filled with a plethora of wonderful themes that I simply adored.

Each theme was carefully crafted and presented in a way that made it both engaging and thought-provoking.

The variety of themes added depth and richness to the overall experience, allowing me to explore different aspects of the subject matter.

I found myself completely immersed in the story, unable to put it down until I had finished.

The way the themes were intertwined and developed throughout the narrative was masterful, keeping me on the edge of my seat and eager to see what would happen next.

Overall, I would highly recommend this to anyone looking for a captivating and intellectually stimulating read.

In preparation for Players Kings in London's West End on 29 May, with a stellar cast including Sir Ian McKellen, Toheeb Jimoh and Richard Coyle among others, I delved into the two plays.

Part 1 had its share of humorous moments in the tavern, yet it was also filled with extensive discussions about wars, rebellions and religion.

Part 2, on the other hand, had significantly fewer funny parts and was generally more somber in tone.

Shakespeare's language, as always, was brilliant. However, a great deal of it eluded me due to my lack of historical knowledge.

Nonetheless, I truly relished the West End performance, which featured modern costumes and set.

Simultaneously, I listened to the audiobooks by the Marlowe Society, and this added immensely to my reading experience. (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...)

This combination of reading the plays, attending the performance and listening to the audiobooks provided a multi-faceted exploration of Shakespeare's works, allowing me to appreciate them on a deeper level.

The introduction of the old, lecherous Oldcastle (later renamed Falstaff due to complaints from the real Oldcastle family) was truly a delight. He provided a comedic break from the bloodshed and political intrigues that the Bard was描绘ing from the later years of Henry IV's reign after his coup d'état of Richard II.

One fascinating aspect was the conflict between Henry IV and his son Hal, the future Henry V. At one point, the father wishes that Hotspur, from the rival camp, was his own son. Meanwhile, Hal loves to have fun with Falstaff. For example, Hal says, "The thieves have bound the true men. Now could thou and I rob the thieves and go merrily to London, it would be argument for a week, laughter for a month, and a good jest forever."

However, near the end, Hal saves his father's life (on his path to redemption which is completed in Henry IV Part 2) and they are reconciled. Henry IV tells Hal, "Stay and breathe awhile. Thou hast redeemed thy lost opinion And showed thou mak'st some tender of my life In this fair rescue thou hast brought to me."

Overall, the speeches in this play were perhaps a bit less memorable than those in Shakespeare's Richard II, yet the piece is filled with action. It was thoroughly enjoyable. Now, I look forward to Henry IV Part II as my ignoble soul awaits.

Highly recommended is The Hollow Crown, S01E02 with Tom Hiddleston as Hal and Joe Anderson as Hotspur. The battle of Shrewsbury was well-shot. The Falstaff/Oldstone plot offers comic relief, and Simon Russell Beale's portrayal is both pathetic and moving at times. I never had a great affinity for the old lecher, but it sets up the drama in Henry IV Part 2 to see Hal and Falstaff imitating Henry IV and Hal in the barroom scene.

Fino's Reviews of Shakespeare and Shakespearean Criticism

Comedies

[List of comedy reviews as before]

Histories

[List of history reviews as before]

Tragedies

[List of tragedy reviews as before]

Shakespearean Criticism

[List of criticism reviews as before]

Collections of Shakespeare

[List of collection reviews as before]

The presented paper bag, approximately six years old, has a good role. If its four-hundred-year-old staging history were included, it would be even better.

The play must be said to be quite good.

It is possible, very possible, to overestimate Falstaff, but some values cannot be given up. Values must also be given in Glendower, just by looking around in one scene. This play seems to be much less just than Shakespeare's tragedies. No moral reason was seen behind the downfall of the characters. It is not just because Hotspur died. If Hal had died instead, only the sequel of the play would have changed.

Here, the tragedy is rather the fall of Falstaff, a fall for which he does not have to suffer, but only Falstaff has to bear the blame of the readers. What greater tragedy could there be than on the head of a worthless character!

Although quite clumsy, all the attractive characters, except for Hal's companions with Falstaff, are truly interchangeable with each other. Besides, the others really raise the play, the rasa experience is very extraordinary, and there is no tendency to give knowledge at all (meaning not like Johnson's comedies at all). In the end, the play is left hanging. Maybe there is a second part, and maybe we will read it one day. Another reviewer has talked about parallel events, which is also true. Henry IV and Falstaff, Falstaff and Glendower, Hal and Hotspur, Shakespeare has made this play even deeper by creating such contradictions outside of history, pair by pair. If Hal had been made ten years older behind Hotspur, this play would not have been set at all.

Who will be allowed to do this now? Everyone around the playwright knew about Henry IV, yet how he broke history and wove the story like this. If I make Tajuuddin the wayward foster son of Tajuddin for the sake of the story, who will be human?

Comedy has fled, and tragedy only survives with the explanations of the critics, now just a mess around in the name of entertainment. Falstaff is nowhere to be found.

Honestly, I was a little worried that Shakespeare's historical plays would be boring. I thought they might be filled with dry facts and long-winded speeches about events that happened centuries ago. However, I was completely wrong. Shakespeare's historical plays are anything but boring.

These plays are a vivid and engaging portrayal of the past. They bring to life the characters and events of history in a way that is both entertaining and educational. The characters are complex and multi-dimensional, and the plots are full of drama, action, and intrigue.

Whether it's the political machinations of King Henry IV, the tragic downfall of Macbeth, or the heroic deeds of Julius Caesar, Shakespeare's historical plays have something for everyone. They are a testament to his genius as a playwright and a reminder of the power of literature to transport us to another time and place.

I found it extremely heavy.

Three stars because it is the minimum canonical for Shakespeare. This work of Shakespeare, although it may have certain merits, left me with a rather burdensome feeling. The language and the overall narrative seemed a bit too complex for my taste.

However, considering Shakespeare's status and the significance his works hold in the literary world, I felt compelled to give it at least three stars. It is a classic, and perhaps with more in-depth study and understanding, I might be able to appreciate its true value.

Nevertheless, for now, I can only say that it was a challenging read that didn't quite resonate with me on an immediate level.

Maybe in the future, I will revisit it and have a different perspective.

Taking this text in hand after reading "Richard II" gives the work even more depth and complexity.

In "Henry IV", even more clearly than in the previous work, the true protagonist is not the king who gives his name to the drama but his potential successors, the two Harrys, that is, the legitimate heir, the Prince of Wales, and Harry "Hotspur" who rebels against the crown.

The heart of the text lies precisely in the opposition between these two characters. On the one hand, we have a wayward, unreliable heir to the throne who spends his time in taverns, engages in robberies, and whose only purpose seems to be the invention of new pranks. On the other hand, we see a fearless Hotspur, always ready to assert his reasons, at the head of an army of rebels, who demands an account from the king for his actions. Henry himself admires him and would prefer him as a son rather than as a rival.

But there are several parallels between "Henry IV" and the previous text.

Indeed, it would be difficult not to draw comparisons between the old deposed king because of his bad behavior and the current Prince of Wales, that is, the future king. Both appear completely unfit for the role. Henry IV himself, in fact, says that Hotspur would be a better heir than his son and wishes that the two Harrys had been swapped at birth.

An important aspect of the text is also that the historical drama is perfectly balanced with the purest and funniest comedy, in which the undisputed protagonist is the irredeemable Falstaff.

All the lightness of the comic scenes somehow ends up masking the drama of a work that, in my opinion, is very bold as it seems to reflect on the very meaning of kingship.

According to Henry IV, kingship is a game of appearances. One must show oneself little to the people, maintain an aura of mystery around one's figure, in order to inspire reverential fear and respect. But Henry knows that the legitimacy of his throne is not taken for granted because it is the result of the deposition of the rightful king.

This opposition between the legitimacy of power and the morality of those who exercise it was also present in "Richard II", but here it seems to me that there is an even deeper criticism as the legitimacy of the throne now seems in fact more closely linked to the military capacity to maintain the position.

The entire text has a very high rhythm, is entertaining and full of action. This work also seems to be covered by a veil of disenchantment where Henry IV and his son appear absolutely lacking in majesty. Henry is full of uncertainties and Harry is a comedian.

This was truly quite good!!

The story was extremely well developed, and I had the distinct impression that each of the characters possessed a remarkable level of depth. This is something that you don't often encounter in Shakespeare's works, so it was truly a delight to witness.

The fact that I have a great appreciation for the history that lies behind the story only serves to enhance my enjoyment of it. It adds an extra layer of richness and authenticity, making the entire experience even more engaging and fulfilling.

Overall, I found this to be a very satisfying and enjoyable piece of literature. It had all the elements that I look for in a great story - well-developed characters, an interesting plot, and a connection to history. I would highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys reading and wants to explore a different side of Shakespeare's works.

This must be one of Shakespeare's best historical dramas.

Although a lot is invented for dramatic effect, we can never consider the Bard as very historically accurate, as he is first and foremost a playwright.

The fairly simple plotline that follows the major points of the reign of the first Lancastrian king is enlivened by the inclusion of what should be Will's most comical character, Sir John Falstaff, the bon vivant par excellence. He often steals the stage from Prince Hal with his antics, rogue witticisms, and rascally way of life.

I also liked the "Harry to Harry" point-and-counterpoint type of parallel narration for Henry Percy ("Hotspur") and Henry of Monmouth ("Hal"). This allowed Shakespeare to offer a comparative storyline for two young men with so much talent for warfare and leading men. However, they are underestimated and often chided by their fathers, the Earl of Northumberland and Henry IV respectively, and other elders of varied competence and vanity. This is due to two large flaws that color the public perception of them. Hotspur has the shortest fuse in England, and his hot-headedness lands him in serious trouble and makes him vulnerable to manipulation by cunning older relatives, which culminates in a disastrous rebellion. Hal is a hopeless carouser, whoremonger, and reveller, adding more gray hairs to his father's head with his licentious lifestyle and the bad company he keeps.

One of these young men will realize in time that he needs to change course if he wants to walk far in life, but the other's path will end at a battlefield by Shrewsbury as a consequence. This would be the tragedy portion of the play, but even so, it doesn't lack humor, with Falstaff's "cowardly lion" battle exploits that are worth a smile or two.

I would have objected to calling this Henry IV, though! The king barely appears to bemoan his useless prince heir or bemoan that the Percys & Co. just don't understand how cool a king he is and how merciful, etc. I suspect Shakespeare doesn't like Bolingbroke a great deal, because even in Richard II, where he ironically had a larger role than in this play named after him, he seemed to me slightly more sympathetic to the deposed king than to the then Duke of Lancaster. Likewise, in this play, he's more enamored of Prince Harry (what's it with scandalous English princes called Harry?). So, this first play of two could with justice be called instead The Very Merry Youth of King Hal the Fifth.

Hey, that sounds much cooler!