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.

Sure. Richard gets some good speeches.

The best of the three Henry VI plays.

More fighting, but what I will remember most are Queen Margaret's strength and King Henry VI's moving soliloquy. Richard's growth as a villain may deserve a second look.

2021 reread: watching the BBC production with this reread strengthens my impression of Queen Margaret as a serious force (such a turnaround from Henry VI, part 1) who overshadows her husband. The production also makes me disdain King Edward IV and marvel at Warwick.

The Scottish Play is known as the bloody one, but only because 'Henry VI Part 3' is hardly known at all, for this play has gallons more per act, I assure you! 3 Henry VI has vampires and blood banks alike salivating at every page. It's widely known that the inspiration for 'A Song of Ice and Fire' was the 'Wars of the Roses', but I think it likely this very play.

The first two parts of Henry VI were slow, but with memorable characters and scenes. I praised the second part for how its plot gets moving toward the end, but that play is put to shame by this high-octane, land-speed record breaking war play. Nearly every single scene is just the intermission of one battle or another.

Does this make for high art? Good drama? Probably not, but for once I was wide awake while reading Shakespeare's histories. I haven't read a page turner like this in Shakespeare's collection since Macbeth.

On a more serious note, this play is reminiscent of the current gang warfare in my city. Murders are rampant, and every instance gives cause for another in the form of revenge. This tale is as old as Henry the Sixth at the very least. If not the Wars of the Roses then the Wars of the Rose Bandanas. I wonder why it is so thrilling for me to read about these once horrific events, even as they are repeating themselves down the street. Truly, war and murder are awful things, but they excite us so much. It is easier to enjoy when removed by centuries, but even so... should I enjoy this play at all?

The link this makes between personal, selfish, revenge-driven motives and the futility and pain of a civil war creates a solid, well-rounded thematic center which is echoed in the best scenes, including Rutland's murder, the King with the father/son murders, and Richard's fantastic speeches. I wonder if I would have enjoyed this so much if I weren't familiar with & looking forward to Richard III, because he was absolutely my favorite thing about this play, but he's a great character regardless. The momentum, language, and thematic consistency in this play reminds me of the better, later Shakespeare plays with which I'm more familiar; a solidly enjoyable experience.