Very action-packed, even more than the first two. Ends with more resolution than the last two plays, but again includes the perfect set-up for the next one: Richard III.

This one doesn't really have a plot, it's more a series of stabbings.

And, gallant Warwick, do but answer this: / What is the body when the head is off?

I'm not going to lie, this one slaps. A real banger.

I read 1 and 2 Henry VI in summer 2020 and found myself really burned out, so I put this 3 Henry VI aside for a later date, not knowing I was sleeping on a masterpiece.
We have the horrors of war, staged powerfully in the 1500s, back-stabbings, front-stabbings, political intrigue, and lots and lots and lots of my man Richard III. What's not to like?

Shakespeare was sometimes too good at writing villains, because if I had been living in Elizabethan England, I probably would have been executed for treason over how much I love the House of York. I'm not normally a villain girl, but man, I cannot get over Richard III.

http://nhw.livejournal.com/1088481.htm[return][return]This is the least-owned individual Shakespeare play among LibraryThing users, which is a bit surprising since it is the best of the three parts of Henry VI, and is surely important background for Richard III (which comes next).[return][return]The title character gets a lot more prominence here than in the previous parts - where Part 1 was Talbot's story, and Part 2 York's, this is much more Henry's. He gets by far the best scene almost to himself - Act 2 Scene 5, a meditation on the awfulness of war and the nature of kingship. Also, where the supernatural forces of the first two parts were the witchcraft practiced by Joan La Pucelle and the Duchess of Gloucester, here it is Henry himself who prophesies that Richmond will succeed him and that Gloucester will cause further deaths and misery (the latter, of course, not a terribly tough call as Gloucester is busy killing him at the time). Henry is a very sympathetic character here - he realises he is unfit to rule and hands over power (under constraint) to York and then (more willingly) to his former enemies Warwick and Clarence. His death, the last in a long series of horrible deaths throughout the play, is a fitting climax to the trilogy.[return][return]The other two leading characters (once York has been hacked to bits at the end of Act 1) are Henry's wife, Queen Margaret, and Richard of Gloucester. Margaret is an established character from the first two plays, but here she comes into her own, essentially providing the leadership for the Lancastrians that Henry is not able to. She is the first really memorable female character who is not a witch. Those characters who complain about female leadership are shown up as mistaken; perhaps this is partly an implicit defence of Elizabeth I? She viciously tortures and kills York in the first act, but then sees her own son given the same treatment by York's sons at the end; her zeal for the cause is manic rather than admirable, but at least she never changes sides.[return][return]Gloucester is of course shaping up to be a super-villain, and I guess I'll have more to say about him in the next play. Sure, his villainy is a bit one-dimensional, but his asides to the audience explaining what he is up to are tremendously effective in drawing us into his confidence. David Troughton, in the version I have been listening to, makes him entirely fascinating. He is a much more interesting character than his brothers - in particular, Clarence's motivation for ratting and (even more) re-ratting is pretty cardboardy.[return][return]The other two characters worthy of note are Warwick and Edward IV. But neither of them quite came alive for me; I felt Shakespeare was too burdened by the historical record to do a good job - Warwick especially is more acted upon than acting, and the capture and release of Edward by the Lancastrians just seemed a bit pointless. Warwick's change of allegiance is directly motivated by Edward's error of judgement in what is practically the only important decision we see him make as King - his pathetic attempt at seduction of Lady Grey in Act 3 Scene 2. I really wasn't sure how to take that scene; I've seen some suggestions that it is meant to be comedy, but it didn't make me laugh. The interesting echo from Henry VI Part 1, of course, is that we see Edward marrying for physical rather than political attraction, and in both cases this turns out to be a Bad Idea. (Again, I wonder if this was in some way commentary on current affairs?)[return][return]A final point is that, apart from the first act which tells of York's rise and fall, I felt this play was less easily segmented than the other two; where Part 1 had a succession of emsembles doing different bits of the tail end of the Hundred Years War, and Part 2 told different bits of York's story in each act, here the narrative seemed a bit more seamless.[return][return]Fails the Bechdel test dismally. The only point at which two women talk to each other is a very short conversation between Queen Margaret and King Lewis's sister, Bona, about Edward IV.

3.5

Man, there was a LOT of set up in this trilogy but the payoff was totally worth it. 100% action packed, with all the characters at peak plus ultra running around killing each other with at a RELENTLESS pace. Each act was it's own clearly structured little thing, with a major death at the end of at least three; the politics was rapidfire (I think the crown got passed back and forth like four times), some international intrigue, betrayal, murder, battles, weird creepy marriages, more betrayal - it's all fucking there. Richard of Gloster/ the future Richard III is in top form as is Margret of Anjou, who solidly matches Joan of Arc in Part One for hardcore bullshit. Some minor characters from Richard III (which I love) get really fleshed out in fascinating ways including all three brothers and papa York. I was also really compelled by Warwick, who played a huge role in the latter half of the trilogy. I'm pumped to reread Richard III in light of these characters and I'm super happy to have gotten through the Henry VI cycle for the first time.

This was actually really good, unlike [b:Henry VI, Part 1|286792|Henry VI, Part 1|William Shakespeare|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1348227793l/286792._SY75_.jpg|9933321], and even better than [b:Richard III|42058|Richard III|William Shakespeare|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1328043960l/42058._SY75_.jpg|2913597]. I love a good political intrigue. I doubt this book's historical accuracy, but it seems less false than the two previously mentioned, but is therefore less educational. My most major complaint is its terrible pacing, which is worse than average Shakespeare plays ([b:Titus Andronicus|72978|Titus Andronicus|William Shakespeare|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1397028943l/72978._SY75_.jpg|275237] being the worst).

If you also love historical novels involving political intrigue, [b:The Three Musketeers|7190|The Three Musketeers (The D'Artagnan Romances, #1)|Alexandre Dumas|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1320436982l/7190._SY75_.jpg|1263212].