Royal Diaries: Elizabeth I

I have always been a reader even when I was a tiny human. So, imagine my surprise when I read Queen E's letters and I'm flash-backing hardcore to my childhood. "Why?" you ask? Because Elizabeth's letters remind me of the greatest books of my youth. The Royal Diaries series. And isn't it just a pretty damn good coincidence that I thought of that because guess who is one of the royals that starred in this series?

That's right, ladies and gents! Childhood meet Real Life. 

Now, it's been YEARS since I've read the Royal Diaries but I still was feeling some pretty strong nostalgia. 

The Royal Diaries are complete tonypandy. Sure, it's historical fiction so there's obviously some things that have been moved around a bit to fit the mold. But it's also historical fiction catered to children and young adults. That series laid a foundation for my reading habits and interests as I became older. I wouldn't have developed a love for Cleopatra if I hadn't read her Royal Diary. Same for Anastasia, Marie Antoinette, Mary Queen of Scots, etc. etc. etc.

There is no way to know what these young women thought when they were in their tweens but they plant a seed for kids to find out more.

So Queen E's letters were like candy for my inner child. But instead of complete tonypandy, these letters are R.E.A.L REAL!! Like, actual facts from the woman herself. Actual words! HNNNGHHGH I LOVE IT!

But what makes these letters even more awesome than they already are to me, is that we finally get a "voice" to this historical figure. We can listen to her talking when she's young, old, being a bad-ass, or trying to save her ass. We get a sense that she is a human being that we can tangibly see actually existing.

Obviously, Richard III existed. And obviously so did Caesar, but to see real paintings of Elizabeth and also read her speeches and private letters add a more colorful dynamic to her character that makes her more real. yes Yes YES! And now for my favorite E meme:

The Big Bad: Who Is It?

Okay, guys, we made it! No more Shakespeare for the rest of the semester! But since we are still discussing Julius Caesar, I find that I have an issue with this play.

Who is the villain?

Many of us enjoy villains. They are what make and break a movie, show, book, etc. etc. etc. So the fact that I can't figure out who the centralized villain is is disconcerting.

I'm not sure who we are really supposed to be rooting for in this whole thing. 

Are we rooting for Brutus because he's a great candidate as a protagonist and we follow him through the entire play?

Are we rooting for Marc Antony, Cassius, Caesar (although that would be short-lived)?

WHO ARE WE SUPPOSED TO HATE AND WHO ARE WE SUPPOSED TO LIKE!?

That's what, to me, makes this play infuriatingly frustrating and also infuriatingly likable. 

It has me in knots because as soon as I make up my mind on who fills the role as the protagonist/antagonist, the roles switch or something new comes into play to mess with me. It kept me guessing trying to figure out which direction the characters would go. 

As a lover of history, I knew Shakespeare wouldn't deviate too far from the truth.

I knew that Caesar would die... and that Brutus would die... and that Rome was pretty much up for grabs for Octavian to come in and snatch it up. But even in this story rooted in fact, I can't discern who the good guy is. I know a lot of people in here are bad... but who is the main Big Bad?

Usually, in a piece of entertainment, the villain and the hero are pretty obvious. 

Harry Potter vs. Voldemort

Jamie & Claire Fraser vs. Black Jack Randall (**Side note: Anyone find it odd that Tobias Menzies played Brutus in Rome AND BJR in Outlander? Coincidence? I think not)

Snow White vs. The Evil Queen

I'm curious to find out who you guys fill the roles as "hero" and "villain" in this play because, to me, Shakespeare has put me through the ringer trying to figure this out!!

Rome

Well for starters, it was much more entertaining to watch what we read about in Plutarch, especially on such a grand scale. Watching the same moments on a low budget production would not have the same effect. When we think of this era of Rome, we think about lavishness and extravagance and the show did not disappoint when it came to this. For example, the celebration of Caesar being appointed dictator was very grand in scale and fun to watch. However, the scene where that poor guy was hung in front of everyone was a little difficult to watch.

Another scene that was difficult to watch was Caesar’s assassination. Though it was quite brutal, it is what actually happened and as a viewer, we were able to capture the emotion experienced by the murders, particularly Brutus, that was not captured in our reading. The emotion of the character’s made them seem like real people as opposed to just someone we are reading about in a historical text.

This just brings it back to our discussion of how we interact with different types of media. Reading Plutarch was challenging, but watching the same stories unfold in Rome was entertaining and engaged my interest. Additionally, I saw these “lives” we read about actually become lives! Watching the characters we get a much better sense of their attitudes and their emotions, which make them much more real than reading about them.

Another aspect of the show that I found really interesting was the focus on the women, Servilia and Atia. There is not an in depth mention of them in Plutarch, but they did, at least according to the show, played a large in role in how a lot of the events played out, like Servilia’s subtle urging for Brutus to kill Caesar. I think this added an interesting dynamic to the show, as well as to the history of the events. Too bad Plutarch did not write a Lives about the women of ancient Rome. Those would have been great stories to tell!