My name is Bilal Baig. Today I will manifest the few ways that Richard III is not a villain but a victim.
Is Richard III a villain or a victim? A victim is interpreted as someone or something that has been accused of a crime, that of which they hadn't committed. A villain is defined as "a scoundrel, rascal; also a criminal, a character in a story or play whose evil actions affect the plot". I feel as if I should define "anti-hero" as this could be a relevant term for Richard. An anti-hero is defined as "a protagonist who lacks conventional heroic qualities (e.g. courage). The question is very relevant to the character of Richard. I believe this is because he encompasses two personalities, which in itself makes him villainous, but also makes
…show more content…
I am determined to prove a villain and hate the idle pleasures of these days" (lines 16-31, act 1, scene 1). The language used in the quotation is powerful! It also demonstrates factors of jealousy and a lack of self-esteem. It shows that he is jealous because he wanted his brother and king to be in deadly hate with each other. Instead of living and letting live, he is determined to spoil the lives of others and enjoy himself in the process, "since I cannot prove a lover... I am determined to prove a villain", showing how he is vindictive, certainly a villainous quality. I think it is important that he uses the word determined, showing it is his true intent, and more importantly, all this language shows his actions were not spurred by the moment. But premeditated, and well thought through. Richard III is not a villain because due to his physical appearance being mocked, it would deeply mentally, and emotionally hurt him to be in a situation like this. As a human being, he would take revenge, which meant killing his brother Clarence and the king to hate one another. William Shakespeare depicts Richard as a deformed and malevolent individual who takes out his bitterness over his own twisted body on the world, serving only his own