Garcia 1

Maria Garcia
Professor Maenhardt
ENG 2300-400
20 February 2016
Whatever It Takes: Richard III and the Role of Evil
History has revealed a tendency in people to exercise binary perspectives time and time
again, utilizing simplistic opposition to often make judgments and assess individuals/situations
quickly. Perhaps one of the most simplistic and popular opposing relationships is that of good
and evil. The crusade has proven entertaining and direct in many forms, most popularly
producing characters the audience loves to hate. Enter Richard, who, for many readers, is
thought of as malevolence incarnate, an elvish-marked, abortive, rooting hog, (1.3.230). The
analysis of evils role in this play is of utmost importance, as the audience continues to harbor a
hatred for the concept, while it is also this main characters most prominent and motivating trait
that moves the entire story forward.
This established, defining evil and identifying what makes Richard Gloucester so
maniacal is necessary in discussing the recurring theme throughout the play. Recognizing how
one sees themselves and their motivations is a critical step in identifying a truly evil person.
Because, while it may be the mere view of outsiders that some are saints and others sinners (to
name-call is surface level, not groundbreaking), actually evil people recognize immoral thoughts,
and choose to act on them, whereas those who are not evil might be able to imagine similarly
evil things, but choose to not entertain these ideas in the physical world. Evil people know what
they are doing is wicked, (this is what makes them so appalling). It is insane people who cant

Garcia 2
see their actions are contrary to social norms and mores. Richards soliloquy provides an
exclusive insight to the characters psyche:
Why I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to see my shadow in the sun
And descant on mine own deformity.
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determind to prove a villain
(1.1.25-31)
Gloucester has labeled himself a villain, a title seeming to stem from the characters self-loathing
perspective and unhealthy self-image that has made him unstable and angry. One might argue
that these reasons justify his acts, forgetting that many good people experience grief and
marginalization of some sort, but choose a different path. In truth, theres no excuse.
Through identifying a persona, it appears Richard feels obligated to adopt the
responsibilities that come with such a title; yet, the reader is hardly sympathetic. Really, the
audience is introduced to a character that has recognized evil temptations and allowed himself to
act accordingly, again, whereas most people ignore such thoughts. Richards statements are
hardly a level of connection; they serve more as a point of disgust for the audience. I might argue
that calling himself a villain in this scene has cemented Richard in a direction. It has given him
purpose, albeit not a worthy or actually fulfilling one, but one that will drive his actions

Garcia 3
nonetheless. In respect to Richards deformity, it might be argued that this is the cause of his evil
(i.e. self-loathing and insults have driven him to generally resent people as a whole and crave
some control and power), or that Richards disfigurement is a representation of his evil intentions
that have manifested through his physical appearance. Interestingly enough, even with a
deformed exterior, manipulation and persuasion arent out of this characters reachin fact, he
excels in this arena.
Gloucester is known for his influence, his childish self-centered agenda in the race for
the throne, and his pride that somehow endures his self-hatred throughout the play. One of the
first clear instances of manipulation is during a dialogue with Lady Anne, a grieving widow
completely cold and insulting (rightfully so) towards Richard who claims to have killed her
husband so he could win her heart. Richard is tirelessly complimentary towards Anne, and
convinces her in her vulnerable state that he is a good person, And wet his grave with my
repentant tears, I will with all expedient duty see you (1.2. 220-221). In another account of
manipulation, Gloucester portrays himself as a man of god to purposefully deceive: And thus I
clothe my naked villainy/with odd old ends stoln forth of holy writ; and seem a saint when most
I play the devil (1.3.808-810). In these successful manipulative events, Richards charm is
understood as his most powerful tool, which is also a component in his later undoing.
Richards infantile, self-centric line of thinking is a conclusion largely due to his mission
and his disregard for others. In short, people have lost their humanity in his eyes for the majority
of the play, and are mere obstacles in his way of attaining power. A strong testament for
Richards malevolent state is Clarences reaction to a dream he had in which he escapes the
Tower of London and Richard (falling overboard) knocks Clarence over to stay himself (1.4. 924). It seems this nightmare was Clarences conscience reminding him of his participation in the

Garcia 4
Wars of the Roses, and a warning that Richard will not hesitate to save his own life and
risk/eliminate anyone elses. As the reader is viewing this play through the lens of characters that
understand dreams and prophecies to become reality, it is important to note Clarence is in
disbelief of the dream. The event is so appalling and unbelievably selfish that what is usually
trusted as the futures truth is treated with ignorance. Of course, this only perpetuates Richards
evil streak as he can continue persuading and taking advantage of those who stand in disbelief at
such a level of evil.
While the audience has been introduced to a number of truly immoral events courtesy of
Richard, some maintain a reluctance to deem the character an evil one. Doesnt a villain possess
some depth beyond power and greed, some humanity that the reader ought to acknowledge?
Shakespeare seems to think not, based on the death of Richard. In writing, they fight. King
Richard III is slain, the author seems to be suggesting that this character didnt deserve a
complex investigation from others or grief, for that matter. When Richard exhibits the only shred
of doubt, fear, real humanity, it is when he comes face to face with the ghosts of those hes killed
in order to assume the throne (5.3.205-218). Even in this opportunity, Richard recovers and
continues to fight the traditionally good Richmond to no avail. Perhaps the author is proposing
that thinking of Richard III as anything other than a conniving snake is rewarding him for
villainy, allowing the mind to be penetrable by the same kind of relentless manipulation and
unforgiving selfishness that led to his undoing.
Gloucester is certainly the most obviously evil character in this play, but evil is not as
simply definitive as we tend to believe. However, while other characters have been insulting or
unkind, even done evil things, these characters are not self-proclaimed villains, theyre people
that have evil within them, like most beings in any era. Perhaps the most common immorality

Garcia 5
through this collection of characters is that of greed and entitlement. The Duke of Buckingham,
for example, has agreed to aid Richard in his quest for the throne with the promise of earldom
before him (undelivered), Chop off his head, man; somewhat we will do: And, look, when I am
king, claim thou of me/The earldom of Hereford, and the moveables (3.1.1769-1771).
Richard and Buckingham work together to manipulate others as a payment for their desired
status upgrade:
Alas, why would you heap these cares on me?
I am unfit for state and majesty;
I do beseech you, take it not amiss;
I cannot nor I will not yield to you.
(3.7.203-206)
Still, the lengths Buckingham is willing to go even have their limitsRichard puts Buckingham
to the test in requesting, Shall I be plain? I wish the bastards dead,/And I would have it
suddenly performed (4.2.19-20). Buckingham replies that he needs time to think this decision
through, and when he returns, Richard expectantly dismisses his request for the fulfillment of his
previous earldom promise: Thou troublest me; I am not in the vein (4.2.121). Even
Buckingham, one that is willing to lie and cheat for his own position, allows his conscience to
have a voice in this situation, but there is evilness within him yet. Although I dont believe
Margaret is evil, her desire to be recognized and treated as a bona fide Queen illustrate an area in
her self-centered mindset that Richard also displays. Margaret is more of an annoyance and an
embittered woman than an evil person in this story because although she curses and insults

Garcia 6
others, she isnt evil in the sense of Richard or Buckingham. Selfishness is one area where these
characters share a bond and a large attribute contributing to their less-than-perfect personalities.
Richard III is the clear representation of evil, a physical manifestation of a large theme
throughout this play. Evil is a character that makes itself known in its influence of behaviors and
dreams that motivate the characters and drive the story. The engaging reality of evil in this
instance is that while Richard has claimed himself a villain and embraced the wickedness he
possesses, most people contain the capability to act on evil thoughts when blinded by the
overcoming notion of greed and promise of powers rewards. Gloucester is dependent on evil to
lead his life and claim an identity, as his missions of vengeance are ultimately empty and
distracting him from real deep-seated problems the individual is suppressing. Richard is an evil
character because he chooses to continue these quests for power when he is aware of his
corruption. And, while other individuals in the play may participate in evil acts or be
disagreeable/immoral in some aspect, none exude the unforgiving fire that is Richard III.

Garcia 7
Works Cited
Shakespeare, William. Richard III. London, 1597. Print.