Rethinking Richard III

Sun, 16 Sep 2012
5 min read
Add Comment

Richard III parody - George Bush Jr as the King.

If you haven’t already heard the news, it seems that a set of human remains found in what is now a car park could’ve belonged to King Richard III.

In the wake of this news comes an article that discusses the portrayal of King Richard III.

So I thought I’d share my – possibly inaccurate – two cents on the matter.

I’ve always thought King Richard III was a very relevant text for Singapore and Singaporean audiences.

As a big fan of Singapore (I love Singapore!) and Singaporean history in all its forms, reading the text brings to mind visions of:

Nevertheless, as someone who is also very much aware of how media, language and representation can be used to manipulate the minds of the many, I don’t doubt that Richard III could’ve been misrepresented.

To break it down simply (and again, I stress that this might be an oversimplification of the matter):

  • Theatre in Shakespeare’s time was a form of media/entertainment then;
  • Shakespeare wrote during the reign of Elizabeth I who was from the House of Tudor;
  • The House of Tudor was founded by Henry VII; and
  • Henry VII was the same dude who defeated Richard III at The Battle of Bosworth Field and wrested the reign of the throne from him.

In light of this, let’s consider these three truisms:

  1. Any politician worth her/his salt will go out of her/his way to remove any possible threat to her/his throne/seat.

    It’s a measure as old as Jesus (perhaps even older) and has been used in contemporary Singapore’s history as well (c.f. what I mentioned earlier about Lim Chin Siong and the Internal Security Act).

  2. History can be whitewashed/history is written by the victors.

    ‘Nuff said. Alternatively, a lie repeated often enough will become the truth.

  3. Any artist concerned about bringing home the bacon will not want to offend her/his patrons/governing institutions lest her/his funding dries up.

    Very contemporary case in point: Square Moon (“I saw you standing alone…”)

So it could’ve been possible – again, I don’t proclaim to speak the truth; I’m just pointing out possibilities – that:

  1. Shakespeare purposefully portrayed Richard III in the manner he did because he had no choice/he was forced to do so; and
  2. King Richard III wasn’t just for entertainment; it could’ve been used as a tool for public propaganda to shape the views and opinions of the masses in order to provide moral and political legitimacy to the existence of the Tudor dynasty.

Which brings us to our present-day beliefs and also provides us with a very nice reflection on the state of politics in Singapore.

“But Laremy,” you might (or might not, depending on whether I’ve managed to keep your attention up to this point) ask. “Is there any evidence in the text that could possibly support this view?”

“Possibly,” I will reply, and possibly, dinosaur bite you concurrently (or consecutively, depending on how well I can multi-task).

I’ve always thought of the character of The Scrivener as a metatheatrical device which represents Shakespeare’s voice in the matter.

  1. First, the Scrivener’s speech is actually a sonnet, in that it has 14 lines.

    Although it doesn’t follow the rhyme scheme of the sonnets that Shakespeare used to write, form in literature – more often than not – always has a function.

    So the use of the sonnet is meant to reflect the status of The Scrivener as a learned man; a man of letters – much like Shakespeare.

  2. Second, the speech is right smack in the middle of the play – and it’s a 14-line scene on its own.

    Why was it so important as a scene that it had to be left on its own? Why couldn’t it have been excised?

    Shakespeare already had enough material in the play to show the purported misdeeds of Richard, along with the purported views of the citizens.

    Why does this scene even have to exist?

  3. Last but not least, if I may take the liberty of paraphrasing The Scrivener’s speech slightly, look at what we have (mentions of time shouldn’t be interpreted literally):

    This is the indictment of the good [King Richard III];
    Which in a set hand fairly is engross’d,
    That it may be this day read over…
    And mark how well the sequel hangs together:
    Eleven hours I spent to write it over,
    For yesternight…was it brought me;
    The precedent was full as long a-doing:
    And yet within these five hours lived [King Richard III],
    Untainted, unexamined, free, at liberty
    Here’s a good world the while! Why who’s so gross,
    That seeth not this palpable device?
    Yet who’s so blind, but says he sees it not?
    Bad is the world; and all will come to nought,
    When such bad dealings must be seen in thought.

Convinced? Or am I also using media and language to manipulate your mind?

How are you looking at information today?

Fri, 6 May 2011
2 min read
Add Comment

How language and the media works in shaping our thoughts.

Today, before you open the newspaper, turn on the radio or switch on the television, I’d like you to take the time to plough through these two articles:

  1. Critical Discourse Analysis
  2. Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis

If you are of the TL;DR ilk, here is a quick primer:

  • What is Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)?
    From the first article, CDA is a way of looking at things to “stud[y] the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context”.
  • Why is a knowledge of CDA necessary?
    Unbeknownst to many, language IS power. He or she who controls the words, controls the minds of they who read what is written, watch what is shown or hear what is said.

    CDA is thus necessary “to understand, expose, and ultimately resist social inequality”.

  • What are some examples of an application of CDA?
    • Looking at how pictures are used in, say, a newspaper. Are some pictures of certain people unflattering to them? Why is this so? Was there a larger intention in portraying them as such?
    • Comparing how words are used to describe people e.g. when comparing three people of the same standing, Person X is called “fresh-faced”, Person Y is called “innocent”, while Person Z is called “naive”. All three words are synonyms. However, has Person X been given a more positive image? Why?
    • Assessing coverage, or the quantity of information reporting done on a particular topic or subject. Is one topic or subject given more ‘air-time’ than another? Why?

For those of you who have the time, you may want to, say, practice analysing and evaluating information from articles, reports, etc. that have been published – in print or otherwise – over the last one week or so.

With this knowledge, I hope you are more equipped to deal with any new information that might come your way, today or in the future.

I am the wind.

Sun, 30 Jan 2011
4 min read
1 Comment

Or What’s the point of learning literature? (Part II)

(Just to clarify that I’m neither a military nut nor a fanboy of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF). I just have a keen interest in SAF-related issues for reasons I will not mention in public.)

I think the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) has produced a good advertisement that makes use of the principles of literary technique to effectively communicate its message to the viewer.

Take a look at the advertisement here:

(Watch the video in a separate window if you can’t see the embedded video.)

The voiceover text, if you want to read it while the video is being played:

I am the wind.
On land, no blade of grass moves without me.
At sea, every rising wave is touched by me.
Wherever you are, I am high enough to see you
and strong enough to reach out to you 5
and place strength in your hand.
You may not always see me
but you will always feel me
for I am here
for a higher purpose. 10

I won’t discuss the visual semiotics because that isn’t the point of my post.

However, I’ll carry out a bit of literary analysis on the first ‘two’ lines of the text to demonstrate some sense of its literary merit as well as articulate some of the ideas that the advertisement aims to convey to the viewer.

As the “I” in the text represents the entity that is the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF), the “wind” is used as a symbol of the RSAF’s ‘invisibility’ (i.e. how it can operate without being detected by the enemy), its speed, its power, and its versatility at being able to be both strong yet gentle in different times of need.

On one level, the line “no blade of grass moves without me” is an image which evokes ideas of the RSAF’s power – the RSAF has the ability to influence “move[ment]”, especially in inanimate objects that would otherwise not move on their own.

However, if we also imagine the “blade of grass” to be a metaphor for the infantry soldier, which is a symbol of the Army, then the line is also meant to convey an idea of the superiority of the RSAF in the SAF’s war-fighting capabilities: it is at the forefront of military operations in terms of intelligence gathering efforts and attack manoeuvers, to say the least. {This is reinforced in the “sea” imagery used in line 3, which I will not discuss now for want of time/space.) At the same time, the combined image of objects “on land” and “at sea” moving with the assistance of the “wind” also conveys ideas of the interconnectedness of the three arms in war-fighting operations.

Okay, I know this is somewhat wankerish and some people might think I am stretching the limits of plausibility with my analysis, but do me a favour: assume that I am right for the time being.

Now that we’re all on the same page i.e. my analysis is right, what’s the significance of this advertisement in the larger scheme of things?

A well-wrought out advertisement like this can achieve many aims. Besides its primary aim of enticing people to sign on with the RSAF, the advertisement:

  • Instils a sense of national pride in the SAF, from the point of view of the citizenry, thereby increasing national confidence etc., and
  • Acts as one form of deterrence (among other deterrence strategies that the SAF uses) to ward off would-be aggressors, from an external point of view.

So one doesn’t need to know literary devices or techniques in order to consciously or unconsciously receive the implied messages that are sent to the recipient i.e. the person watching the advertisement.

But one would need to have some sense of literary technique in order to be able to create an advertisement as good as this one to achieve said aims I mentioned earlier.

And that, my friends, is another reason why there’s a point in learning literature as a point of departure toward doing other things in life.

P.S. I know I said I wouldn’t discuss the visual semiotics of the ad. But seriously – jogging girl is pretty cute.