This one was also quite good. There is an abundance to analyze regarding Hal and Hotspur. They are foils in multiple aspects, both in terms of their personalities and arcs, as well as in their family relationships, especially the father-son dynamics. I would say they are more effective as narrative foils compared to Coriolanus and Aufidius. This is mainly because both Hal and Hotspur have their own arcs and their stage time is more evenly balanced. However, they are not as good at being the kind of messed-up toxic rivals. They are less insane and there is less homoeroticism.

Hotspur's family really treated him badly, and it makes me angry. And I desired more of Kate! I'm not certain if her presence would have altered anything, considering the nature of Hotspur's relationship with his older, controlling family members. But her being there would have been better for me. I like the relationship between Hotspur and Kate based on what little I saw of it. Falstaff was extremely annoying. Hal already has an interesting arc, and I'm curious to observe how it develops over the next two plays. Apparently, this is the high point of the tetralogy, so we'll have to wait and see how the last two plays turn out. Lol.

Henry IV Part 1 continues the story begun in Richard II. While it's not entirely certain how far Shakespeare intended this to be a history cycle, there's some evidence suggesting he did. The play has many allusions to events in the earlier play and picks up certain threads left over.

However, the tone here is quite different. True, there's much that's majestic and tragic in Shakespeare's approach. But while Richard II is written entirely in verse, Henry IV takes a more mixed approach, with many scenes in prose and plenty of colloquialisms and slang.

Like The Merchant of Venice, our affection for the play depends a lot on our feelings about one of the characters, in this case Falstaff. Falstaff appears in eight scenes, while the titular character is in only six. So our enjoyment of the play is colored by whether we like or hate Falstaff.

However, the real hero is Prince Hal, who ties both storylines together. The story starts where Richard II left off. Henry is now king, but the lords who made him king are unhappy with the favors they've received and turn to rebellion. Their star warrior is the brave but impetuous Hotspur.

Meanwhile, the King has other problems as his son and heir to the throne is hanging out with bad company, a group of thieves led by Falstaff, who acts as a kind of rival father figure for Hal, offering him the fun his father can't.

Hal, however, is not as dissolute as he seems and is biding his time to show his worth. The war with the King's enemies provides that opportunity. The King's army defeats some of the more serious rebels, and Hal redeems himself by fighting valiantly and killing Hotspur in the fight.

The story once again takes up the difficult dilemma of royal legitimacy. Henry is not a bad king. He's firm and decisive, and quick to act. But this isn't enough when he came to the throne by illegitimate means. He can't prevent further problems from breaking out and his crown from being threatened.

The other threat to his crown is having a scapegrace son and heir. But Hal is not as unworthy as he seems. Put to the test, he shows that he does have the worth to be a king in his own right.

We may well ask why many readers or audience members don't really take to Hal, even though he has many estimable qualities without being too blandly perfect and virtuous. The problems can be summed up in two words: Hotspur and Falstaff.

Some people feel more sympathetic to Hotspur, and it's easy to see why. He's hot-blooded and passionate, while Hal is much cooler and more temperate. He also has the appeal of the doomed rebel rather than the successful upholder of the establishment.

However, this appraisal is a bit unfair as Shakespeare goes to great lengths to show Hotspur's unworthiness. His bad temper and sharp tongue cause many problems for him with the King, his own family, and his allies. His alliance with Scotland and Wales against his own country is hardly a sign of true honor as he wants to divide his own country. Finally, he rashly brings about his own downfall by fighting the King before his allies are fully assembled.

In contrast, Hal shows a greater honor than the showy honor of Hotspur. He seems at first to be dissolute but hints that he's only slumming it for now and will redeem himself when the occasion arises. And indeed he does. Without great displays of honor, he humbly offers to fight Hotspur in single combat and ultimately proves to be the greater man.

Falstaff also casts an ironic look at the nature of honor and its lack of worth in fighting. He dismisses it as just air and not worth dying for. In this, he briefly sounds like one of the cynical outsiders Shakespeare will often use in later plays. But Shakespeare is not condemning all honor. Clearly, Hal's sense of honor is to be praised, and we're encouraged to feel the sad loss of Hotspur's, even as he dies fighting against his monarch.

Falstaff's role in the play is often to act as a comic counterpart to the events going on. So his robbery at Gadshill is not unlike the actions of men who seek to steal the crown for their own ends.

The second issue, Falstaff, is more damning for Hal. For enthusiastic lovers of Falstaff, remembering Hal's behavior in the next play, it's hard to love Hal for his treatment of Falstaff. Even in this play, he often mocks Falstaff and makes it clear that he'll drop him later when he needs to.

Some hot air has been spoken by lovers of Falstaff who want to make him out to be brave and honorable. Of course, he's nothing of the sort. Falstaff can be charming, and he's certainly not stupid or uneducated. But he's a braggart, a thief, and a coward.

There's plenty of evidence in the play that he's no great man. For example, he recruits only the worst soldiers, allowing the wealthy to buy their way out. As a result, nearly all of them lose their lives in the fighting. He's also willing to disrespect Hotspur's body to win himself more fame. It's clear that if he stays in Hal's favor, he'll be a bad influence on a king, and made worse by power. So Hal is clearly right to keep his distance.

However, Hal can't be let off the hook so easily. If Falstaff is unfit company for him, we may well ask why he needs to stay with him in the first place. Also, he clearly treats Falstaff and his companions with some disdain throughout, and this isn't very endearing. In his favor, he does at least act to temper their excesses, even returning the money they stole.

The play is quite strong, mixing high and low styles of writing, and scenes of comedy and epic action. The amount of dated slang may make it sometimes difficult for the modern reader to enjoy, but there's still a lot to appreciate.

I have an intense love for this play and this particular edition. It is truly captivating and offers deep insights. I began reading it right after finishing "The Plantagenets," which I highly recommend as well. In fact, that book ends with Henry IV deposing Richard II, directly leading to the situation that this play so vividly depicts.

One of the challenges in reading the history of the English kings is that their stories often start to blend together after a while. However, I have always been able to clearly distinguish Henry II because I watched "The Lion in Winter" 20 years ago. To this day, I still picture Peter O'Toole as Henry and Katherine Hepburn as Eleanor of Aquitaine. I'm quite certain that this image of Henry will remain etched in my brain for another 20 years or more.

Prior to settling on this Arden edition of Henry IV, I tried two other versions. The Applause edition had thorough explanations and insights into how actors have played scenes over time for other plays, especially several well-known tragedies. So, I had high expectations. But unfortunately, it was nothing but a plethora of footnotes indicating technical decisions regarding which folio or quarto was used for a particular line.

The Oxford School Series, on the other hand, had very helpful explanatory notes, and I would have been quite satisfied with this edition. However, when I compared it line by line with the Arden edition (the one being reviewed here), Arden had far more historical information and insightful notes on the wordplay, such as the biblical sources that the playwright was drawing from. Additionally, the Oxford edition sometimes overdid it in explaining some phrases that I found rather obvious.

I visited B&N and carefully examined more than a dozen versions of this play. Without a doubt, I found this Arden edition to be the most superior. It also provides historical information on all the major characters. It seems to be the best available. Although it costs a bit more, about $8 more than the others, considering that I'll be spending 40 - 60 hours with it, it works out to be less than 20 cents per hour of my time for something that is so much more effective. It's truly a bargain.

If money is really tight, I would highly recommend the "Oxford School Series" (and note that this is different from just "Oxford," which is also available).

UPDATE: I started act 5 today, and I'm still completely in love with it. I'm racing through it at my own pace. I could do without Falstaff, but I'm really enjoying Hal, Hotspur, the other rebels, and even the king at times.

UPDATE 2: I wrapped up reading it in a frenzy. It was sooooo good.

Yet another historical play, but make it comedic!!!

To be honest, this particular play was a bit of a struggle to get through. Falstaff, in my opinion, was extremely annoying and his scenes actually seemed to drag on. However, when I watched a part of the play online, I noticed that the humor translated much better onstage.

Here are some random thoughts:

• Falstaff is annoyingly heck, and his scenes really did drag.


• Hotspur clearly has some major anger issues.


• There's a significant amount of sexism in the play, but alas, it was the Elizabethan era and that was the norm.


• King Henry really just said that he wishes Hotspur were his son instead of Prince Hal. No wonder the poor kid is the way he is.


• I'm not entirely sure what to think of Prince Hal, but I'm definitely intrigued.


• Despite being bored for a good portion of the play, there are some really Quality™ insults in here.


• I love how Falstaff pretended to be dead in battle and then was just like "nah fam, I'm fine".

Overall, not a whole lot happened in this part of the play, but I have high hopes for part 2.

3 stars

So good.

This is a concise and straightforward expression that conveys a positive evaluation. It implies that something is of high quality, meets expectations, or is otherwise satisfactory.

A full review to come means that a more detailed and comprehensive assessment will be provided at a later time. This could include aspects such as performance, features, usability, and value for money.

The combination of "So good" and "Full review to come" creates a sense of anticipation. Readers are left curious about what exactly is so good and what the full review will entail. It also suggests that the writer has a more in-depth analysis to share, which could potentially influence the reader's perception or decision.

Overall, this short statement serves as a teaser, piquing the reader's interest and setting the stage for a more detailed examination.

I truly did not care about a single plot line or character in this play.

The story seemed to be filled with a lot of build-up to a battle, but there was not much else to hold my interest.

It felt as if the playwright was more focused on creating a sense of anticipation for the battle rather than developing the characters or exploring other aspects of the story.

As a result, I found myself disengaged and uninterested in what was happening on stage.

The lack of depth in the plot and characters made it difficult for me to form any emotional connection with the play.

Overall, it was a disappointing experience and I would not recommend this play to others.

I believe that a good play should have a well-developed plot, interesting characters, and a theme that engages the audience.

This play unfortunately failed to meet these expectations.

Perhaps with some revisions and improvements, it could have been a more enjoyable and engaging piece of theater.

However, as it stands, I was left feeling underwhelmed and dissatisfied.

Four and a half stars, if only I could.

The beginning really dragged for me. Act 1 and the first part of Act 2 were particularly slow. I just couldn't stand Falstaff or the way the Prince treats him. His self-justification, about how he'll shine brighter because he's been in the mud, seemed utterly pathetic to me.

However, then things really pick up! Hotspur is a hoot, especially his tirade about what a bore Glendower is in Act 3, Scene 1. And Prince Hal improves greatly once he decides to earn his father's approval. Acts 4 and 5 are definitely five-star stuff.

Hmmm. I'd give it five, only I liked Richard II so much better.

After a second reading, I like this even better. Falstaff has really grown on me, actually they all have. And after reading Marjorie Garber's essay from Shakespeare After All, I better appreciated the parallels and contrasts with Richard II, as well as those within the play. I now think this is as good as Richard II, though obviously very different. I'm rounding my four and a half stars up to five this time.

I read this along with the marvelous Arkangel recording. It would have been even better without the glitch in my download that meant I had to read without the actors' accompaniment from Act 2, Scene 4 to Act 3, Scene 3. I hope Audible will be able to set this right so that I can listen to Prince Hal and Falstaff acting out the meeting between the prince and his father, the actual scene between King Henry and his son, etc. I did feel sort of cheated as the recording failed me during some especially great scenes, but what was there was truly excellent.

King Henry's act of rebelling and taking the crown from Richard II has now come back to haunt him, as rebellion dogs his every step.

The opening scene, where civil unrest at home prevents Henry from embarking on a journey to the Holy Land, speaks volumes. The Holy Land is often regarded as a place of shalom and Sabbath rest. However, Henry, in his actions in Richard II, chose a path of disorder. As a result, not only his country but also his own soul lacks the much-needed peace and rest.

The first time I delved into this play, Prince Hal immediately caught my attention, and I eagerly desired to see more of him. It seems my interest has remained consistent, for upon this reread, Hal still stands as the crucial lynchpin of the play for me. At the start, the glory of the son/sun is concealed, but as the play unfolds, it gradually begins to shine through. I am excitedly looking forward to witnessing the continuation of his quest. What strikes me most is Shakespeare's masterful setup of Hal and Hotspur as foils right from the beginning of the play and his seamless continuation of this contrast throughout.

(Lit Life Patreon SIAY 2023 - 2024)

Still one of my most favorite histories, or at least part one of perhaps three. ;)

Our favorite wastrel, Prince Henry, affectionately known as Hal to his friends, was a complex character. He was a drunkard and a thief, yet also the bosom buddy of dear fat old Falstaff. Hal had a brilliant mind but chose to hide it behind a façade of debauchery. He was like a bright sun hidden behind vile clouds, waiting for the perfect moment to shine all the brighter when his day finally arrived.

In this story, we see the establishment of a lout with a sharp intellect and careful cunning. He was dissembling for all to see, but always mindful of the long game. When his father was in desperate need of his son's aid, Hal came to the rescue. He threw off the base clouds that had been obscuring his true worth, or as much as was necessary, to prove himself to his father and the close court. And he did so with great success, killing the most worthy knight in England, the hot-blooded Percy. In doing so, he restored his honor and valor in both word and deed.

This, of course, was just the prelude. It was the foreshadowing of greater things to come. The stage was set for events like the Ides of March.

Ever since I first read this, I've always called such low tides in men "The Hal Effect". It's a reminder that we should never judge a book by its cover. We should always be prepared for the unexpected and not be too quick to write someone off.

"Let no one expect shit of thee, and when the time draws neigh, toot your horn and shock the living hell out of them."

Seriously, Shakespeare? Who knew that when Will Shook his Spear, he'd have so much to say? ;)

I didn't like it as much as Richard II.

The story seemed to lack the depth and complexity that I found in Richard II.

Maybe it was the characters or the plot, but something just didn't click for me.

However, I'm willing to reserve my final judgment until after Part 2.

There could be more to the story that I haven't seen yet.

I'll be sure to write a full review after I've finished the second part.

Until then, I'll keep an open mind and hope that the next installment will change my perspective.

4 stars & 4/10 hearts. I didn't realize what this play was about!

The Glendower War is one of my favourite historical subjects, and Hotspur & Prince Hal are two of my pet historical figures—go figure. (Pun not intended, haha.) So I was very excited when I realized what the setting of this play was.

Of course, Hotspur was splendid. He has some of the best Shakespeare lines, in my opinion. But really, all the lines between those splendid but misguided gentlemen are really good. Prince Hal also has some really good speeches, like the one in the midst of the battle after he has vanquished. And Henry IV has some really good lines too. Overall, the historical part and the historical figures are excellently done.

Which leads me to the non-historical figures. Sir John Falstaff is apparently a favourite of Shakespeare fans. Not for me. So he does occasionally crack a really witty saying, and sometimes the ridiculousness of his situations are funny. But mostly he was a bore and an irritation to me. I hate how he corrupts everyone he gets near to! I don't recall any content besides frequent mentions of drinking, however, and some language.

However, I made a really cool connection through Sir John—that line when he said the soldiers could find shirts on any hedge? I immediately thought of the mention in Twain's “The Prince & the Pauper” and found it super cool—and still do.

Overall, it was probably my favourite of Shakespeare's plays so far, unless you count Comedy of Errors, which is still the funniest, wittiest one for me. I have to say that the exploration of the historical events and the portrayal of the historical figures in this play are truly remarkable. It gives me a deeper understanding and appreciation of that particular era.

The relationship between Hotspur and Prince Hal is especially captivating, with their contrasting personalities and ambitions. And the way Shakespeare weaves their stories together is masterful.

Although I didn't quite take to Sir John Falstaff, I can see why he might be a beloved character for others. His flaws and antics do add a certain element of humour and lightness to the play.

All in all, this play has left a lasting impression on me, and I look forward to exploring more of Shakespeare's works in the future.

My first History play has finally come to an end, and I must say that I liked it well enough.

It has been a considerable number of years since I last delved into a Shakespeare play, but here I am with another one. I read this particular play as a part of my Brit Lit class.

I truly had a great affinity for the characters in this play, especially Falstaff. His larger-than-life personality and humorous antics made him a standout. Moreover, I found myself enjoying the plot more than I initially anticipated.

Surprisingly, for a history play, it wasn't overly burdened with an excessive amount of historical details and battle scenes as I had initially feared. This aspect worked extremely well for me, as it allowed me to engage with the story on a more personal and emotional level.

Overall, I am quite pleased with my experience of reading this History play, and it has reignited my interest in Shakespeare's works.