Civil War Blog Post
Civil war within literature is the idea that there is a crisis that is so corrupt and apparent that
the marks it leaves behind can remain for centuries, like pieces of evidence to an occurrence
that happened not in our recollection, but history’s. When I think of civil war within
literature, I question whether this is the most toxic form of war, simply as, within civil war,
the opponents belong to the same place of origin and thus, the impact upon civilisations is
so much more invasive to the lives of individuals. Civil war within literature, is a crucial
genre in understanding these unique and significant impacts, that differ but are consistent
throughout history. Through the representation of civil war within literature, the individual
is enabled to gauge the sentiment of the time; the crucial decisions and fundamental anger,
that inspired such wars.
Within this module, ‘The War of Roses’ perfectly matched what I have just described. With
such a poignant moment in history, Shakespeare’s Henry VI Part III, allows the audience to
engage with history to a point of understanding how the war remains crucial today. Civil war
in this case, is presented in a form of education; whilst the play fictionalises real occurrences
it remains evident that civil war is something that exists constantly and perpetually, and
fundamentally corrosive to societies. In such a political setting, Shakespeare identifies how
civil war can be a force of similarity between characters; something by which, powerful
individuals share a common hatred, and thus war is developed to the point of these
powerful individuals destructing key morals and, simply each other. Civil war in this case,
highlights how individuals like Richard, Duke of York, are innately corrupt to the point of
illegal actions (i.e. gaining the throne). Within this play, civil war also helps to distinguish the
weaker characters and their flaws; Henry is not a strong king, and thus civil war within this
literature, allows the audience to see how an induvial can be manipulated and taken
advantage of.
Moving on to Richard III, civil war allows the audience to see how characterisation adapts
within the conflict. Richard wants and declares to be the villain, presenting how civil war not
only exists in literature in a literal form, and it way of conveying actual historical events, but
that also civil war is within the individual. Richard himself, creates a civil war of his own
identity immediately from declaring himself a villain. Richard’s jealousy, manipulation and
deceit show an embodiment of civil war within a person. This image reflects the destruction
and corruption that civil war achieves within history and this reflection within literature,
holds an image so poignant that the genre is impossible to ignore in key literary texts
centrally concerned with civil, like that of Shakespeare’s history plays, Henry Vi Part III and
Richard III.
Civil war within literature is the idea that there is a crisis that is so corrupt and apparent that
the marks it leaves behind can remain for centuries, like pieces of evidence to an occurrence
that happened not in our recollection, but history’s. When I think of civil war within
literature, I question whether this is the most toxic form of war, simply as, within civil war,
the opponents belong to the same place of origin and thus, the impact upon civilisations is
so much more invasive to the lives of individuals. Civil war within literature, is a crucial
genre in understanding these unique and significant impacts, that differ but are consistent
throughout history. Through the representation of civil war within literature, the individual
is enabled to gauge the sentiment of the time; the crucial decisions and fundamental anger,
that inspired such wars.
Within this module, ‘The War of Roses’ perfectly matched what I have just described. With
such a poignant moment in history, Shakespeare’s Henry VI Part III, allows the audience to
engage with history to a point of understanding how the war remains crucial today. Civil war
in this case, is presented in a form of education; whilst the play fictionalises real occurrences
it remains evident that civil war is something that exists constantly and perpetually, and
fundamentally corrosive to societies. In such a political setting, Shakespeare identifies how
civil war can be a force of similarity between characters; something by which, powerful
individuals share a common hatred, and thus war is developed to the point of these
powerful individuals destructing key morals and, simply each other. Civil war in this case,
highlights how individuals like Richard, Duke of York, are innately corrupt to the point of
illegal actions (i.e. gaining the throne). Within this play, civil war also helps to distinguish the
weaker characters and their flaws; Henry is not a strong king, and thus civil war within this
literature, allows the audience to see how an induvial can be manipulated and taken
advantage of.
Moving on to Richard III, civil war allows the audience to see how characterisation adapts
within the conflict. Richard wants and declares to be the villain, presenting how civil war not
only exists in literature in a literal form, and it way of conveying actual historical events, but
that also civil war is within the individual. Richard himself, creates a civil war of his own
identity immediately from declaring himself a villain. Richard’s jealousy, manipulation and
deceit show an embodiment of civil war within a person. This image reflects the destruction
and corruption that civil war achieves within history and this reflection within literature,
holds an image so poignant that the genre is impossible to ignore in key literary texts
centrally concerned with civil, like that of Shakespeare’s history plays, Henry Vi Part III and
Richard III.
