Of course, five stars! It's William Shakespeare, after all. I have a great passion for re-reading his plays just to fully relish the richness of the Bard's language.

Although it is a history play, King Henry IV, Part 1 is equally a profound character study of Prince Hal and Falstaff. The eponymous king takes a more backseat role, engaged in fighting a rebellion led by Hotspur, Douglas, Owen Glendower, and Worcester, among others. He is well aware that his grip on the crown is tenuous. When he killed Richard II, he made numerous promises that he has been slow to fulfill.

I would award this play five stars for no other reason than Falstaff's speeches, which are uproariously hilarious. His famous line, "discretion is the better part of valour," is just one example. When the fat knight sees the body of Blunt, slain by Douglas, he quickly decides that honor is not something for him.

In this play, we witness the beginnings of what will eventually become the warrior king Henry V. He shows a hint of ruefulness for having been so closely associated with Falstaff and his group of lowlifes. This play truly showcases Shakespeare's masterful storytelling and character development.

Another great one!

If I remember right, the second part of Henry IV is not as great. I'll have to kinda slog through it on my way to Henry V. Henry V, not slogging through 2 Henry IV, I mean. I've read Henry V like fifty times and seen the movie at least five. My mom really liked that thing. That and Amadeus. Remember back when VCRs were for watching old movies instead of new ones? ("No, because I'm not a million years old like you." "Get off my lawn.")

Anyway, after thinking about it for six and a half sentences, the sex / Henry V comparison doesn't make any sense, so never mind.

I found myself losing focus sometimes during 1 Henry IV. I'm not sure whether it was the context. I had little free time this weekend and I found myself reading it in small bites, sometimes while the wife watched cooking reality shows. Not a great way to read Shakespeare. Or maybe it was that it's been a while since I read a bunch of Shakespeare in quick succession, and my Shakespeare muscles have gone all flabby. We'll see.

Where Richard II was very faithful to the actual history, Shakespeare departs more readily from the strict truth of things in the Henry IV plays. He throws a lot more stuff in from non-historical characters, Falstaff being the obvious one. Possibly because he needs some padding to make this into two different plays. I'm not sure why he did two plays, but maybe I'll get it more after the second one. (I've read all this before, but it's been a while so I don't remember how 2 Henry IV ends.) The dramatic arc in this first part works perfectly, anyway. The climactic (and completely fabricated) duel between the young Henry V and Hotspur makes a great Act V.

Interesting, by the way, that Henry V is at least co-lead with Henry IV in this first part, and he's clearly the main character in the second. Just sayin'. I wonder whether we'd see these plays differently if 2 Henry IV had been called 1 Henry V. I think Henry IV gets less attention than Henry V in part because it's two plays, which makes people more anxious about reading them. More commitment, y'know? But if you take 1 Henry IV on its own... well, it's not as good as Richard II, but it's very good.

I'm rambling badly, aren't I? Truth is I have work to do and I don't want to do it. But okay, I should get to it. See you soon for 2 Henry IV.

By the way, Saccio's book is great. Fun to read, really informative. My pattern has been to read the chapter about the play, then the play, then my Riverside Shakespeare's intro to the play. It's working out nicely. There's a lot of flipping between books involved, though. I'm going to buy a physical copy of Saccio today so I can reference it better. Paging around on a Kindle totally sucks.

Having just watched The Hollow Crown, I found that this play was much easier to listen to. Indeed, the audio alone can be rather confusing. However, a prior familiarity with the play proves to be of great help. I have a deep love for this entire cycle of plays. Shakespeare's remarkable ability to blend pathos and humor truly reaches its peak in this cycle of plays.

The Arkangel recording is, as expected, excellent. It captures the essence and nuances of the play with great precision. The actors' performances are outstanding, bringing the characters to life and making the story unfold in a captivating manner. The audio quality is top-notch, allowing the listener to fully immerse in the world of the play. Overall, it is a wonderful listening experience that enhances one's appreciation of Shakespeare's masterpieces.

An absolutely brilliant and breathtaking work that flawlessly combines poetry, history, and wisdom. Falstaff, perhaps one of the greatest literary creations of all time, is an astounding blend of hilarious wit, well-timed self-deprecation (or perhaps we should say, full of valor in discretion?), fervent loyalty (evoking the love-me-love-me-love-me need of a Golden Retriever), and to top it off, he serves as the ironic paradigm for honor and knighthood. Considering what we truly know about knights and nobles during this era, Falstaff was likely the perfect mirror image, while Hal's newly discovered chivalry is more like the distorted reflection in a curvy circus mirror.

One cannot help but be enamored with the tavern scenes. Here, Hal delivers one of the more poignant soliloquies about the sun, revealing that this is all part of his plan. This plan allows him to briefly breathe freely away from the court, where he will be confined for the rest of his life, and also enables him to understand the true nature of his kingdom. Moreover, after being seen as something of a fool, he can only be perceived as improving. There's only one way to go, and that's up! There also appears to be a parallel story between the in-fighting among the tavern slugs and the so-called "elevated" kingdom-wide tavern brawls of would-be kings and attempted usurpers. Sure, they're the nobility, so instead of a tavern brawl, it's an attempt at the throne, but in essence, it boils down to the same thing, doesn't it? Even the basest man clings to some form of honor, and what does Falstaff say honor is? Nothing but air.

You know why I truly like Hal? He is much like Hector of Troy, confined by his duty to his family and country. He craves freedom but does what he must. Hotspur, on the other hand, is much like Achilles... and really, Achilles is the arrogant fool who always deserved to die. So, it's somewhat cathartic for the viewer to watch the brash and noble yet insufferably hot-tempered Hotspur meet his end and realize that all he accomplished will redound to Hal's glory, and he will be forgotten.

I should note that I read along after watching the Hollow Crown series. The acting was marvellous, truly wonderful. However, reading along was not entirely conducive as they jump around significantly and leave large portions out. Luckily, none of the omitted portions were Jeremy Iron's (King Henry) conversations with Hal upon his return to court, as those are some of my favourites.

The Wars of the Roses is a significant event in history, and Shakespeare dedicated two plays to this particular era. Henry IV, also known as Henry Bolingbroke, deposed Richard II, but his reign was far from peaceful. There were still those who desired Richard's return, despite the many who supported Henry due to dissatisfaction with Richard's rule. Kings often solved such problems through a crusade, but Henry faced issues with Wales and Scotland, preventing him from embarking on such a venture.

Influential families like the Percys caused intrigue, and Henry's own son, Hal, gave him headaches with his scandalous behavior, leading people to question his worthiness to the throne. However, the most charismatic character was Falstaff, despite his flaws.

The intrigues against King Henry IV culminated in a battle at Shrewsbury. Opposite the king's forces was one of the Percys, known as "Hotspur." Completing the trio were King Henry's son and his friends, including Falstaff.

I didn't initially like Hal, as he was vile and made fun of his companions. But he informed the audience that he would prove himself worthy. The battle at Shrewsbury gave him the opportunity to do so, and he did not disappoint. The single combat between Hal and Hotspur was thrilling.

In the end, even Falstaff vowed to change his ways. This play not only explores the theme of the Wars of the Roses but also the growth of sinful youths into men of honor. It serves as the groundwork for both part 2 and the next play about Henry V. I found this play more enjoyable than the one about Richard II, perhaps due to the comic relief and the transformation of fools into heroes.

Maybe a 2.5? It has some great writing but was absolutely dry and boring

Recently, I've delved into two very deep and dark wormholes. One is my rather hapless attempt to master the art of baking the perfect (or at least remotely edible) sourdough loaf. I've nurtured my starter, even named him Frank, and feed him daily. But so far, he has let me down. Poor Frank may not have a long future. The other wormhole is William Shakespeare and his historical plays. The latest one I've explored is Henry IV, part 1 – by William Shakespeare.

Billy the Bard is from Stratford, not far from where I was born in the UK, so we're almost like relatives. Henry IV, part 1 is the historical sequel to Richard II, a work I read, reviewed, and enjoyed recently. I have to say, I liked Henry IV even more. I'm not sure if it's because I'm more attuned to the language now or because it's written in a different style. I think it's a bit of both.

In this play, Henry IV is much older compared to Richard II. He's been in power for a while and is tired and a bit worn out. He faces two main issues. Firstly, he has a difficult relationship with his party-loving, reprobate son, Prince Harry (Hal), who seems to prefer drinking at a local tavern with his mates over attending to affairs of state and his responsibilities as Prince of Wales. Secondly, Henry IV has to deal with a significant rebellion/civil war and various conspiracies. Nobility from the North and Wales, led by Henry Percy (Hotspur), were forming a large force to take the throne. The Percy family actually helped Henry IV usurp Richard II, but they ended up questioning his legitimacy.

These two narratives develop nicely as seemingly separate stories until they converge into a brilliant piece where Prince Henry reconciles with his father. There's a remarkable scene in the palace where King Henry IV gives his young, probably hungover, son Henry a huge telling-off. But finally, the young prince sees the error of his ways and swears total allegiance to his father and offers to help him defend the Crown. This exchange is written so well. They then come together to fight Hotspur and his co-conspirators in the Battle of Shrewsbury.

I found this play lively. Especially the scenes in the tavern with Hal and his mates. The speech is completely different from that of the nobility. It's full of slang, the vernacular of the common people, with lots of bawdy humor, teasing, and practical jokes. My favorite Shakespeare character so far, Sir John Falstaff, was a highlight. He's a bloated, cheating, deceitful, funny, and sketchy fellow, and his relationship with Hal is both warm and antagonistic. He's VERY funny. Then there's the deadly serious political shenanigans of Henry Percy. The long diatribes by the extremely opinionated, arrogant, angry, and let's be honest - brave Hotspur. He just seems so antagonistic to everyone, especially to the King and his son. Hotspur is a character you wouldn't want to bump into with your supermarket trolley on a lazy Saturday afternoon. He'd throw you from the fruit and veg section to the canned vegetable aisle in a moment.

Falstaff and Hotspur are my favorite characters, but there are many other interesting players in this story, from the nobility to the poorest of the poor. But between Hotspur and Falstaff, the latter is the star. A lot is made of the fact that he is fat, and I've recently looked up a lecture on this. His fatness is mentioned (and other related descriptors) over twenty times! In fact, scholars wonder - why is Falstaff fat? Shakespeare doesn't usually emphasize physical attributes. If you want to learn more, look it up. There's plenty of opinion on this man's corpulence and its significance.

I’ll no be no longer guilty of this sin; this sanguine coward, this bed-presser, this horseback-breaker, this huge hill of flesh

So this is a heavy political/historical play that's also a comedy, and it's just brilliant. I can now say I'm a fan of Shakespeare. Maybe even a groupie! Time to buy a T-shirt, or maybe even get a tattoo?? As is my habit, I also watched the BBC's Hollow Crown version of Henry IV, with a great cast. Tom Hiddleston is excellent as Hal, all bright, shiny, cheeky, and perky. Jeremy Irons is great as Henry IV, tried and cranky and a bit shouty. But I think the best performances are by Joe Armstrong as Hotspur, angry, violent, strong, and even more shouty, and the hilariously corrupt and chubby Falstaff, played by Paul Ritter. This is not a cheap production. The sets and scenes are realistic, and the battle scenes are violently eye-opening. Thank heavens for publicly funded television. I truly love my (Australian) ABC and the BBC.

I'm so happy I read and watched this, and even more happy that I understood it.

5 Stars

Bill, Hank, and I really did a great job on this one.

We put in a lot of effort and worked together as a team.

Bill was very detail-oriented and made sure that every aspect of the task was completed accurately.

Hank brought his creativity and innovative ideas to the table, which really helped to enhance the overall outcome.

And I, well, I did my best to contribute my skills and knowledge to the project.

Together, we were able to overcome any obstacles that came our way and achieve a successful result.

We should all be proud of what we accomplished.

This experience has taught us the importance of teamwork and how working together towards a common goal can lead to great things.

I look forward to working with Bill and Hank again in the future on many more successful projects.

4 Stars.

I pursued various aspects such as Love and War, Vice and Virtue. However, I ultimately settled on Dramaturgy. It seems that in a royal court (any court for that matter), people not only scheme for position but also posture for it. Their own words reveal how they pose. There are the high and the low.

Henry IV tells how he, Bolingbroke, became King by feigning humility. He is proud of his posing and brags: "But being like a comet, I was wondered at, That men would tell their children, 'This is he!' Others would say, 'Where, which is Bolingbroke?' And then I stole all courtesy from heaven, And dressed myself in such humility That I did pluck allegiance from men's hearts." (Act 3, scene ii)

The King firmly believes he needs a strong Prince of Wales to command the men and leaders of England. But Prince Hal has a different plan, one of tomfoolery. He spends time with a pub crowd, yet has a plan to straighten up at the right time. He says: "My reformation, glitt'ring o'er my fault, Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes Than that which hath no foil to set it off. I'll so offend to make offense a skill, Redeeming time when when men will think least I will." (Act 1 scene 2)

King Henry would rather have Hotspur as his son. Hotspur is always serious and militaristic, or so it seems. Sometimes he likes a game of one-up-manship and will pose for some inward grins, as seen in his exchange with Glendower: "I think there is no man speaks better Welsh. I'll to dinner." "Peace, cousin Percy; you will make him mad." "I can call spirits from the vasty deep." "Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you call for them?" (Act 3, scene I)

Even the socially marginal pose. Falstaff tries to get Prince Hal to honor him. He falsely claims to have killed Hotspur and then prays to become an honorable man, but he is clearly lying and posing. He says: "I'll follow [the prince, as they say, for reward. He that rewards me, God reward him! If I do grow great, I'll grow less; for I'll purge, and leave sack, and live as cleanly as a nobleman should do." (Act 5, scene iv)

This play is complex, with Shakespeare creating multiple family dramas. It explores themes such as Powerful Men and their Heirs, and the decisions and consequences that determine the fate of a country. It makes one wonder about the relationship between parents and children, and the responsibilities that come with power and position.

Shakespeare's Henry IV Part 2 and Henry V complete the tetrad, further delving into these themes and the complex web of characters and their relationships.

Overall, this play is a fascinating exploration of human nature, power, and family, and it continues to captivate audiences and readers alike.

I listened to the Arkangel full cast recording while delving into the E Book format of the play from the Delphi Complete Works of William Shakespeare.

The plays King Richard II, King Henry IV Pt. 1 and 2, and Henry V, form what is known as a “tetralogy” or four plays that are interconnected like a book series.

In the final play, King Richard II, we witness that Henry Bolingbroke has usurped Richard's crown and crowned himself king. However, the position of that crown on his head is extremely precarious.

Not everyone is content with the new king, and there is a great deal of mischief brewing. Moreover, he has a son who doesn't take things too seriously.

The character who will truly steal the show and become a favorite is Falstaff, who is prominently featured in this play.

With all the antics and shenanigans happening within the play, along with what I believe is beautiful singing in Welsh, it makes for a truly delightful and entertaining story.

It is a captivating exploration of power, politics, and human nature, brought to life through the masterful words of Shakespeare and the engaging performance of the full cast recording.

I feel rather lazy today, so you won't receive a detailed review or analysis from me.

Nor do I have the inclination to be overly critical. Let me simply summarize this remarkable and chaotic play: I never imagined I would enjoy (truly enjoy) one of Shakespeare's historical works. I'm delighted to have been proven wrong, as now I feel nothing will prevent me from exploring his entire body of work and having a great time in the process. Henry IV, Part 1 is remarkably accessible, even for someone with no knowledge whatsoever of 16th/17th century England and its strange houses: York? Lancaster? Tudor? I only know Targaryen. ;) The reason for this is its comedic nature. Henry IV, Part 1 reads like one of the Bard's comedies, as if The Merry Wives of Windsor and Much Ado About Nothing had been blended together.

There is so much banter, so many witty one-liners, and all the likeable characters who make foolish choices, but you wouldn't expect otherwise because it's Shakespeare. Honestly, the most prominent mood in this entire play is Prince Hal deliberately disappointing his father. His reasoning for his debased behavior is that he believes he can better impress his father if the latter has the worst opinion of his character. I mean, he's not wrong. I still don't know if Hal really had to go to such extremes, hanging out with thieves and prostitutes, but whatever, I guess. We all had some rough times in our teenage years. ;) At one point, Hal actually decides to rob his friend Falstaff just to prove a point. We all know that in Roman culture, stabbing oneself is a way to prove a point, so I think Hal's approach to life is actually quite reasonable.

Additionally, Henry IV, Part 1 is also a rather predictable play, not just because it's followed by Henry V and you already know Hal's father will die at some point, but because Shakespeare sets up his character archetypes and plot points in very obvious ways: the disappointed father who wishes another were his heir; the son who deep down wants to make his father proud; the roguish friend who provides comic relief but whom you'll grow to love (but since I already knew Falstaff from The Merry Wives of Windsor, that didn't quite work for me; I just wanted to see him choke, to be honest). The predictability of this play was actually helpful in my understanding, as I had enough trouble keeping all those names straight (why are literally every male named Henry or Richard??? I could cry).

I didn't even mind the countless battles and fighting scenes that much, as Falstaff kept me entertained throughout. I'll give him that. The way he tried to talk his way out of this war (by basically collapsing every five seconds without actually fighting and then later claiming all the greatest victories for himself) was so relatable. My most common annotation was: #ME. :D And the showdown between Prince Hal and Hotspur (=young Harry Percy, the boy who turned rebel and whom the King was so fond of in the beginning) was simply epic. I was rooting so hard for Hal to finally prove his father wrong and make him proud in the end, while also feeling sorry for Harry and his struggles to make a name for himself. Shakespeare really did an amazing job of fleshing out all these characters in a very short amount of time. Bravo!

Henry IV, Part 1 is definitely a play to remember, and I can't wait to finally finish its second part.

There seems to be an overemphasis on Falstaff and fat-shaming in this context, while there is a distinct lack of attention given to the beauty and power of poetry and the significance of Henry IV. Falstaff is a complex character, but perhaps the focus on his girth has overshadowed other aspects of his personality and the role he plays in the larger narrative.

Poetry, on the other hand, has the ability to transport us to different worlds, evoke emotions, and provide profound insights into the human condition. It is a medium that can enhance our understanding and appreciation of the story of Henry IV. By neglecting poetry, we may be missing out on a deeper connection with the text and the themes it explores.

Henry IV is a rich and multi-faceted historical figure, and his story offers many opportunities for exploration and analysis. We should strive to balance our examination of Falstaff and the more lighthearted elements with a more in-depth study of the poetry and the historical context of Henry IV. This will allow us to gain a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of this important work of literature.