More Thoughts on Henry V

[mark_asphodel]

 "[A] simplistic and simple-minded fairy tale in which a plucky prince, abetted by the Almighty, whips a lot of decadent foreigners and wins for himself fame and a cute princess."

Sound familiar?  It's from Gorman Beauchamp's 1978 essay "Henry V: Myth, Movie, Play," and is meant as a denunciation of the Olivier hack job film adaptation of said play.

I spent the evening at the local symphony; Sir Neville Everywhere Marriner conducted a programme entitled "Henry V," which included one of my very favorite pieces of music, "Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis" (Vaughn Williams) in addition to something that amounted to the juicy bits of Shakespeare's Henry V, performed by Michael York over selections from the soundtrack to the Olivier film.  My most excellent spouse complained that York's performance made Henry come off as a villain in places, but I personally suspect it to be intentional.  The source material, you see, is problematic.  A surface reading comes off like a hagiography; Henry is this all-around wonderful dude, coasting from success to success.  Even though the odds are supposedly stacked against him, he never suffers a real setback, much less a genuine fall.  He ends up with the glory and fame and the cute princess and the promise of a bunch of land (all of France) that he doesn't technically deserve.  Here's the thing, though-- Shakespeare's audience would have known what many in a modern US audience may not, which is that Henry's triumph fell completely to pieces within a generation.  The play is rendered a tragedy by its context, if not the text itself.  And there are subversive comic elements in the text that indicate that yes, Shakespeare intended his allegedly noble main character to be undercut.  Now, it's not all a vicious satire, but the overall effect is more... ambiguous.

Interesting stuff.

Oh, yes.  Fire Emblem.  I find it amusing-- and a bit silly-- when fanboys (for they do seem to usually be male) slag off poor Ephraim and Eliwood as being "unrealistic" warrior princes.  Crack open yer Shakespeare, take a nice long look at how Good King Harry is portrayed in the "surface reading" of Henry V and then explain to me what's so wrong about Eph and Eli.  That precise "type"-- archetype, if you dare-- has been around for centuries.  Our prince is so noble!  So approachable!  He calls us brothers and gives everyone encouragement with a smile!  And so on.  Cracking heads and taking names is NOT the order of the day.  So, yeah... anyone calling for FE games to be more "realistic" is barking up the wrong tree when they zero in on Ephraim and Eliwood as franchise problems.

[I'm not saying you have to like either of those guys.  I'm saying their personalities are appropriate to their respective stations, or at least to a very longstanding conception thereof.]

Comments

[samuraiter.livejournal.com]

Henry V has never been the easiest subject to treat, particularly considering that, if one looks at the history, he comes off as a psychopath, applauded in his time, but reduced to cursing ineffectually from a bed as his bowels rotted and his empire collapsed. What Henry V built up, Joan of Arc knocked down. :-) Riveting story, all the more so because it is true, though accounts will vary slightly. I imagine that Shakespeare was required to treat his subject a little more gently than history did, but seeing him undercut that image while lionizing it at the same time is proof positive that he – or whomever was hiding behind his name – was one of the literary greats.

I have no issues with Eliwood, and I like Ephraim. :-) If anything bugs me about either of them, it is that they tend to get upstaged by their supporting casts, but this tends to be true of any JRPG. (And, despite the fact that I rather routinely put Eliwood through Hell in 'fic, I think more highly of him than I do of most main characters.)

[mark-asphodel.livejournal.com]

he comes off as a psychopath, applauded in his time, but reduced to cursing ineffectually from a bed as his bowels rotted and his empire collapsed

Indeed. Not to mention a religious fanatic. Same goes for modern perceptions of Richard I-- these romantic warrior kings tended to be a really bad thing for their subjects in the end. This colors my writing to a large degree; the shadow of Henry V and his ilk hangs over quite a few of my stories, most blatantly in "Heaven's Blessings Upon Us," where that was the point of the exercise.

but seeing him undercut that image while lionizing it at the same time is proof positive that he – or whomever was hiding behind his name – was one of the literary greats.

Yes. The plays are as famous as they are because, for the most part, they really are that good.

I like Ephraim

I actually really like Ephraim; his more obvious flaws bother me as much as they do because overall I'm favorably disposed toward him. What I don't like is the strain of fanboyism that holds up Hector as the end-all, be-all of FE Lords and brushes off Ephraim (and anyone less aggressive than Ephraim) as "garbage." As for Hector himself, I'm rather tempted by shimizu_hitomi's interpretation of him as an inspiring warrior who was not, in fact, a very good statesman-- the right man in the wrong place at the wrong time, perhaps.

[After all, the saga of Eliwood and Hector, like Henry V, is a victory rendered as tragic by its context. Every action Hector takes in FE7 is another step along the road to Araphen.]

but this tends to be true of any JRPG

Or manga, or anime. The protagonist, as the embodiment of many virtues, is too often less interesting and human than his/her subordinates who represent a single virtue and a number of endearing flaws. And so on.

And, despite the fact that I rather routinely put Eliwood through Hell in 'fic, I think more highly of him than I do of most main characters.

If I may ask, why do you find yourself putting him through hell for 'ficcing purposes? I've said more than once that I suspect some readers come away from my stories with the idea that I hate Marth, though it couldn't be further from the truth. On one level, I just feel a need to pick away at a character who is exalted by canon to such a terrifying degree.

[samuraiter.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Food for thought! If I had to say that I interpret rulers through any particular lens, it is most likely through the sengoku period of Japan, in which those who proved victorious were often those who were the most unscrupulous, rather than the most virtuous. The Three Kingdoms period of China also comes to mind, since it adds the caveat that even the most virtuous are not immune to ruling through emotion, rather than reason.

My favorite Shakespeare play is Othello, but his histories tend to be extremely underrated, and they raise a number of interesting questions (e.g. royal legitimacy in Henry IV, whether or not a seizure of power is a just thing in Julius Caesar, etc.).

Hector is, statistically, the strongest Lord in the history of the series, and I suppose his fanboys base their opinions on that, but I agree with your assessment: In blood, he is a noble, but he is ill-suited for it, being more at home with the common soldiers. I can see him being more than happy to take the field against Bern in the FE6 region of his timeline, but I do not see him having the tactical know-how to pull off a victory. A great warrior, no doubt, and he likely went down swinging, but not a leader. He has the potential, but, to use it, he needs another person to balance out his weaknesses. With Eliwood, Hector can win against all odds. ... With Eliwood sick and far from his side, though, he was doomed to die.

Hard to say where Lyn fits into that formula, since there is no reference to Lyn in FE6. I imagine her own virtues balance those of Hector and Eliwood, making them the unbeatable triumvirate we know and love.

Now, to answer your question, I seem to torture the characters I love most. IMO, this is because pain and suffering are part of a great story, and giving characters a chance to grow and learn through those experiences is what puts them in the spotlight. I am especially bad to Eliwood, but I am worse to those I love most (Sain, Serra, Kent, Fiora, many others, but Fiora gets it worst). This is so that they can emerge at the end of the tunnel as stronger, wiser people.

Or, at least, die a good death doing the right thing.

[myaru.livejournal.com]

A surface reading comes off like a hagiography;

I tend to ignore the FE heroes, as the minor characters are often more inspiring to me. However, they - or their stories, anyway - would all be worth looking at with the above comment in mind. It never occurred to me to give them the Final Fantasy Tactics treatment, but that could be really interesting.

I'm saying their personalities are appropriate to their respective stations, or at least to a very longstanding conception thereof.

I agree. Actually, I would take issue with Ike and Micaiah (FE10) on those grounds, rather than their predecessors.

[mark-asphodel.livejournal.com]

It never occurred to me to give them the Final Fantasy Tactics treatment, but that could be really interesting.

Oh, is THAT what FFT is about? Subversion? That's cool.

Actually, a lot of FE games would almost seem to invite that kind of treatment-- FE2 (the hero as pawn), FE5 (a what-if to FE4, whose failure is assumed in 4), FE7 (victory made tragedy by its context), and especially FE11 (a false dawn for a lot of doomed characters plus sadistic gameplay elements).

Are Ike and Micaiah too "modern"? That's part of my problem with Lyn... she feels at times like a very contemporary construct placed in this mythical world, where Eliwood and Hector belong but Lyn doesn't quite fit.

[myaru.livejournal.com]

I think they might be. Tellius explores a lot of modern themes, actually, but the setting wouldn't allow people like Ike and Micaiah rise to the prominence they do, to represent the ideals they tote around; Ike especially seems like a kind of modern liberal construct, with the way he interacts with the belief systems in his world. Micaiah is a little different, but her existence is still hard to believe, and not because she's so saintly.

They're both perfect for a subversive reading, actually - in canon, even.

Aside: you might want to try FFT some time. :D

[samuraiter.livejournal.com]

Or – and this is my recommendation – read up on the Wars of the Roses, then play FFT. That game draws so heavily on that period that knowing one before going into the other makes for a fascinating experience, and most of the FFT characters have historical counterparts.

[mark-asphodel.livejournal.com]

Wowee. It just so happens that The Wars of the Roses are one of my personal obsessions, so... I'm there, dude. As soon as I can get a copy.

Uh... what platform is it for, again?

[samuraiter.livejournal.com]

You have two options. The PSP version has a superior translation, but not everybody has access to a PSP. The PS1 version – the Greatest Hits version of it, at least – is not quite as easy to get, but the translation is almost fifteen years old and tends to be rather pants. In any case, highly recommended. It has, IMO, the best story of any game in the FF franchise. (And, if you get a chance to play it, be certain to read all of the background information that the game gives you.)

[myaru.livejournal.com]

You may have just convinced me to look at something that isn't Japanese or Chinese history. Double score for tempting me to read British history, when so far Milton is the only one to have accomplished such blasphemy.

[samuraiter.livejournal.com]

(I am a big fan of Milton. Managed to luck into a copy of the Annotated Milton for $6.95 the other day. Very tasty.)

For the period, I recommend The Wars Of The Roses and The Princes In The Tower, both by Alison Weir. She writers, IMO, the most accessible treatments of the period. The second book is particularly noteworthy because it deals with the rise and fall of Richard III, followed by the succession of Henry VII, both of whom are very clearly represented in FFT.

[mark-asphodel.livejournal.com]

Ms. Weir is highly accessible, but my opinion of her has gone steadily down with each book. I was very much impressed by her treatment of the wives of Henry VIII, but by the time she reached the Wars of the Roses (books I rather looked forward to), I found her tone shrill and partisan. I admit to being a Yorkist at heart (also a fan of Henry VII, funnily enough-- but not for very nice reasons), but I'm ready to be convinced by evidence. I thought The Princes in the Tower to be a lot of hypothetical castles based on unsupported conjecture-- and again, I found the tone of the writing unpleasant.

I also thumbed through one of her books of Henry VIII's kids and didn't much like that either. She strikes me now as something of a one-trick pony.

[samuraiter.livejournal.com]

Hmm. This may attest to how malnourished the history section is at my store, but the only books I have seen there for that period are by Ms. Weir, so my point of view may be a little skewed. :-)

And Henry VII is fascinating, especially because he has the same problem as Henry IV: Staring those demons of legitimacy in the face. Curious that there does not seem to be as much literature on him as one sees for his descendants.

[mark-asphodel.livejournal.com]

Check out AJ Pollard's treatment of "Richard III and the Princes in the Tower" if you can find it. His scholarship is more... respectable than Ms. Weir's. He's considered a "moderate traditionalist" in WotR circles, for what it's worth.

Henry VII suffers from being sandwiched between the sexy York brothers and his glorious monster of a son. Also, he's cast as this perennial old grouch despite being quite a young man when he usurpedcaptured the throne. But, basically, consolidating one's power in an efficient manner, filling the treasury with gold, and NOT having umpteen mistresses is apparently not interesting to people. Same deal with Louis XII of France-- the man's accomplishments were great, yet all people remember was "Oh, yeah, that old guy who was married to Henry VIII's sister for a couple of months." If they even remember that.

And the Showtime series apparently got even THAT all wrong!

[samuraiter.livejournal.com]

A.J. Pollard, you say? *takes notes* Will do. I love the period enough to want to take a second look.

I see what you mean when it comes to the colorful characters hogging the pages of history. And Louis XII is likely not aided by the fact that there are so many French kings of the same name, most notably #14, the warmongering spendthrift.

I somehow doubt that The Tudors aims for historical veracity. *chuckles*