Reading this, I couldn't help but imagine all the phenomenal stage or screen productions that could be (and have been) made of it. The play is often characterized as a series of stabbings and battles in rapid succession, but that severely downplays the emotional poignancy on display. In this final chapter of the Henry VI saga, once-peripheral characters like Queen Margaret and Richard of Gloucester reveal the full spectrum of their thoughts in passages of incredible rhetorical power--including the longest monologue in the Bard's entire canon for the latter. More than in any play he wrote before this, Shakespeare asserts himself more confidently as not only an entertainer and showman, but also as an artist interested in the extremities of human experience. (Contrast, for example, Margaret's superb rallying speech to her troops on 5.4 to her heartbreaking plea for her son's life only one scene later.) These are the passages that feel the most heartfelt and meticulously crafted, with the lacunae in the text left for bloody interludes serving primarily as a means of moving from one oratorical flourish to the next.

What keeps it from being a great play on the page is exactly that halfhearted dependence on spectacle; while the language frequently segues into the sublime, the abundance of action set pieces makes a reader feel as though they were only getting half the story. I'm sure a competent staging would yield an A+ show, but the script unfortunately makes for a B- read.

The civil war is playing out and becoming increasingly murderous with fathers and sons at each other’s throats and the nobles having zero honor and honesty. Richard of York is more and more a central figure and the character obviously intrigues in more ways than one. It’s hard to look at this in terms of Shakespeare’s development as this was a collaboration. But even so you can see this perhaps as learning his craft. The set pieces, the massive cast, the complex history.

“Here, I hope, begins our lasting joy.” -- Act V, Scene VII

Henry VI Part 3 appealed to me more than Parts 1 and 2 mainly due to a few stronger characters and Shakespeare’s improved ability to write dialogue.

I don't believe this was written to sympathize with Henry VI, and at first I didn't. He seems cowardly and his reluctance to fight casts doubt on his fitness for his role as monarch.

But as the death count rises, and every other character jumps at the chance to murder for whichever cause they happen to support on any given page, I started to realize that VI might be on to something. He's the only character who factors human life into the equation. All the more "courageous" and "resolute" players fail to even notice, let alone mourn, the thousands of lives lost in pursuit of their desired title.

Even Henry V, the king of English kings, won his legacy by a lifetime of bloody conquest. But while everyone around VI encourages him to follow his father's example, he resists. This refusal to yield to peer pressure is its own brand of courage.

I guess it's hard to give him too much credit because his courage, if it truly exists, didn't bring about peace. I think a real leader has the wisdom to discern between a dispute that calls for compromise and one that merits tenacity or even violence. Had such a leader appeared somewhere in the fifteen-act saga of King Henry VI, many lives may have been preserved.

I really enjoyed the development of Richard. I am excited to read Richard III in a few weeks. I also really loved the character of Margaret. There is a great deal of woman-bashing/gender stereotyping that is insulting to the 21st century reader, but I can imagine Shakespeare's contemporaries getting a kick out of it.

Hopefully it's much better on stage/screen.

I would consider this the first of Shakespeare's really great works and a sign of his talent that will continue to develop over the next several years (it dates from the early 1590s most likely)

This is based on two very different scenes that show Shakespeares ability to portray emotion and depth and his sense for drama through contrast.

The first scene is based around Henry who observes the price the peasants pay for the war between nobles when he watches a son discover he has slain his father and a father who has slain his son. The grief and emotion in the scene actually moved me to tears.

That scene is shortly followed by a scene focusing on the hatred and war rage of the nobles, who are moved by hate and anger and a desire for vengeance and war.

The comparison between the two scenes clearly shows who is the better class, despite what the nobles may think.