Archive for the ‘About Writing’ Category

John Shakspear’s (Shakespeare) Contribution to Art (and Catholicism)

February 6, 2017

http://hyperallergic.com/344523/saved-by-shakespeares-father-a-series-of-medieval-murals-is-finally-restored/

The above article proves that John Shakspear (as he spelled his name), then an official in the borough of Statford upon Avon, was a dedicated Catholic who defied the dictates of the new Protestant regime in England. Rather than destroy the artwork in the church, he had whitewash painted over. This evidence helps to prove my contentions about John, and then William, in my upcoming novel “The Shakespeares and the Crown”.

Advertisements

Essay ‘beta readers’ Wanted!

December 17, 2016

I have written an essay for Notting Hill Editions, a prestigious British essay publishing company. I would really love a couple of beta readers to give me feedback.
shakespeareThe title is “Shakespeare’s ‘Romeo and Juliet’: A Warning to Elizabeth?” The thesis is that the play was much more of a political message than a simple love story. Including the bibliography (which you can ignore!), it’s 7,000 words, or about 15 pages. Please let me know if you might be interested. Thanks!

You can email me at donmakerauthor@gmail.com

Tribute to Tolstoy

September 9, 2016

I read “War and Peace” a few centuries ago (it seems), but I had no idea Tolstoy wrote essays on pacifism and philosophy that greatly influenced Ghandi and King, Jr.! Always interesting to learn more about great writers. Thanks to Abbie Lu for blogging this.tolstoy

(Click on the link, then on the ensuing link for her blog.)

“We can know only that we know nothing.”

Source: Tribute to Tolstoy

Plot Arcs

September 8, 2016

I’m not a great fan of ‘formulaic writing’, but this is a very good analysis of the basic structure of all fiction.

STORY STRUCTURE: The 5 Key Turning Points of All Successful Screenplays

A Great Article on Promoting Science to Children!

July 29, 2016

This article, from the Indiana Writers’ Conference, was near and dear to my heart! I tried to use the same techniques, especially humor and research to make certain the science was accurate, in my YA novel “Miranda’s Magic”. I think it’s great that other writers are using fiction to promote an understanding and love of science in children.

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

To Instill Love of Earth Sciences in Younger Minds

by Hardarshan S. Valia

From my nascent days of schooling in the small town of Chindwara, India, I’ve marveled at the colorful canvas of rocks displaying flow of highly colored minerals. I was lucky enough to follow my passion of the Earth’s history through schooling into my work place at Inland Steel (now Arcelor Mittal) R&D Laboratories, East Chicago, Indiana. My professional life was dedicated to studying carbon usage in the steel industry. There, I studied with amazement the magical formation of colorful carbon forms during the coal-to-coke carbonization process. To an untrained eye, coal and coke are dirty-looking materials. But looking under an optical microscope, seeing how the organic entities in coal melt into nematic liquid crystals that come closer and seem to talk to each other as they coalesce into a beautiful entity called coke, one falls in love with nature’s wonder. It is this intoxicating interaction with science that I wanted to share with others.

No, no, I did not run like Archimedes shouting, “Eureka!” because the coal-to-coke carbonization phenomenon had been observed for years, but I started to go to nearby schools to help children see the beauty of earth materials that I saw and continue to see. My work travels had taken me to many parts of the world where I would take every opportunity to amass my collection of rocks, minerals, and fossils. Like a folk storyteller, armed with my earth wares and wealth of stories, I would sing the Song of Earth and tell stories of Earth’s Evolution to children who, in my biased opinion, loved it very much. After the end of class, they were allowed to handle the specimens and make their own observations. Those years of telling tales finally ended up in my taking on a project of writing a book where my protagonist describes the evolution of life through various geologic times.

There are four points I consider in writing for children to make Geology/Earth Science attractive to them.

1) Make it scientifically correct.

Stories/films are frequently endowed with creative licenses; the brain evolves and knowledge-hungry children are able to sort out facts from fiction. This means, yes, there is a role for Science Fiction for children in an effort to ignite the “What If” moment. However, misconception should not be created when writing science genre for children. Presentation of scientific facts must be based on what we currently understand as valid science. In my story, some characters are fantastical but the science of Earth’s history is accurate.

2) Show large scale geologic phenomenon in simple form.

Example:

To show that Mountains are formed when rocks are folded or uplifted, I show them an actual slab of Marble from China where a layer of Iron-rich brown/black mineral is folded into mini-mountains amidst the backdrop of white marble.

3) Connect the unknown to the known

Example:

To show that two organisms probably evolved from a common ancestor, I show them a large rock slab that contains two straight shelled Orthoceras and three coiled shelled Ammonite fossil types of Cephalopod fossils from the Atlas Mountain Range of Southern Morocco (See Figure 2).

The fossils are from the Devonian age (359-416 million years ago). I connect them to the current relatives of Cephalopod as follows:

4) Anthropomorphism and humor are effective techniques

Example:

To make it interesting in my story, I portray how my protagonist is drowning due to turbulence in the ocean and is rescued by a cephalopod who grabs the protagonist and provides shelter in its chamber. To give interest to my fossil character, I make them talk and exhibit all ranges of anthropomorphism.

Here is a scene in my story when the protagonist first meets a Mastodon before the start of the ice age.

“Sunny, why do you carry that trunk?” I wanted to know.

“I was the Sheppard for the Pigsty family. I used my trunk as a rope to encircle smaller pigsty.” He spoke as a stand-up comedian with a serious look on his face.

“Come on, that’s not the real reason.” I knew that he was kidding around.

“I was a circus acrobat. I used my trunk to swing from the high rope,” he said seriously.

“Oh, really!” I wanted to tease him. “Show us your great swings on this tree!” I pointed to a large tree trunk before me.

“That tree won’t take my weight. I need a big tree.” He knew fully well there was no tree in sight that would support his weight.

“Come on! I need to know now. Why do you carry that trunk?” I was getting impatient.

“O.K., O.K., Small Doodle!” That is the name he used for me whenever he showed affection. Then he continued, “A big body needs big hands, a big mouth, and a big stomach so our noses and upper lips became elongated, resembling a hand-like feature, allowing us to pick up food from the ground or pluck leaves from the trees.” He said the entire thing in one breath.

“Very interesting!” I exclaimed. His explanation made perfect sense. I marveled at nature’s evolutionary processes.

This approach is how I disseminate the beauty and the science of Earth through story telling and writing to those well on their passageway from childhood to adulthood.

__________

Hardarshan S. Valia has published stories, essays, and poems in magazines such as: Huffington Post, NWI Times, Urthona, Hub, Bitterroot, Iron & Steel Technology, Sikhnet, Sikhchic, and Sikh Review. A story entitled “India…ana” will be published in a book entitled “Undeniably Indiana” by Indiana University Press in August 2016. During his tenure as Staff Scientist at Inland Steel (now Arcelor Mittal) R&D Laboratories, East Chicago, he contributed mostly to science journals and science books. He is married and has two children. He is a member of Indiana Writers’ Consortium, Magic Hour Writers Group, Write on Hoosiers and SCBWI.

Posted by Indiana Writers’ Consortium at 12:00 AM No comments:

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels: Hardarshan S. Valia, writing for children

A New Interview of Me and My Work

July 24, 2016

My latest interview, as posted by Maria Grace on her blogsite. Please give it a read, and see some of her other interviews of interesting writers. Cheers!

Writing Superheroes: Don Maker

Some Very Different Writing for Me

June 19, 2016

I have published four novels now, most of them historical fiction. So this is something very different for me.

In high school and throughout college, I acted in many school and community theater plays. I also minored in psychology in college. So I decided to combine those two disciplines. SIGI AND CARL explores the questions that plague most of us: Have we done something truly meaningful with our life? Will we leave a legacy? This surrealistic play responds through the life and relationships of Sigmund Freud, with Carl Jung as his major counter-point. Guest figures include Hamlet, Albert Einstein, Anna Freud, and Melanie Klein.

SCHOOLS AND TEACHERS, please note: I am happy to provide text copies at no charge if you would like to read in class or produce any or all of this play. As an educator, I wish to promote knowledge as well as creative thinking.

If you have time, please give this a look.

https://www.amazon.com/Sigi-Carl-Play-Three-Acts-ebook/dp/B01GT3Q5YQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1466304510&sr=8-1&keywords=sigi+and+carl

I’ve Been Interviewed!

June 5, 2016

Annie Whitehead, an award-winning historical fiction writer and a member of the Historical Fiction Society, was kind enough to interview me for her blog.

http://anniewhitehead2.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/from-charlemagne-to-shakespeare-and.html

Part 3: “Romeo and Juliet” as a Warning to Elizabeth.

January 26, 2016

The last part to my essay explaining why Shakespeare may have had a much deeper message for Queen Elizabeth concerning her rule over her Catholic and Protestant subjects than writing a simple play about love and death.

A Couple of Other References from the Play


Although this is somewhat of a non-sequitur for this essay, it is not surprising to me that in his poem “Queen Mab”, Percy Bysshe Shelley channels the wild, chaotic sense of independence of Mercutio in his famous speech to Romeo. I think Shelley picked up on many of the religious questions in Mercutio’s speech and used them as a springboard for his atheistic arguments. Needless to say, I do not think Shakespeare was being any worse than a trifle irreligious, as he was criticizing the (to him) senseless battle between the two Christian sects, and not Christianity itself.

Then, the play essentially ends with these lines from the prince:

“And I for winking at your discords too
Have lost a brace of kinsmen: all are punish’d.”

As a writer, I wonder why the prince also lost a couple of kinsmen. As a moral tale for the reason stated in his prologue, it would seem that Mercutio might better have been related to Romeo, say his brother or first cousin, than the prince, because it would have been more of a family tragedy if all of the deaths had been to members of the family. For that matter, if Paris had to die to heighten the dramatic irony, he could have been a cousin to Juliet, as those marriages were quite common in that society. Such relationships would have heightened the grievous loss to the families as a result of their ridiculous feud. For me, it adds no dramatic tension that the prince lost relatives as a result of a limited feud between two families, no matter how rich and powerful they were in his city.

However, as a political statement, it makes perfect sense to me. Rather than being limited to the proverbial “others”, the ruler of this little fiefdom suffers personal loss from the violent bickering going on under his jurisdiction and control. As I understand this play, this message is a direct appeal to Elizabeth to stop the persecution and bloodshed amongst her subjects and her own “relatives”, whether or not those were actual blood relatives. As the prince says, all are being punished.

Juliet’s Famous Line

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.” (Act II, scene 2)

A wonderful pun, I believe. There are many metaphors he could have used, but I think Shakespeare is referring back to the War of the Roses, the White Rose of York and the Red Rose of Lancaster. When the followers of Mary of Scots rebelled against Elizabeth, they wore a red cross, while the Protestant followers of Elizabeth wore a white cross. Later, the Tudor rose was combined with a red outer rose and a white inner one.


Juliet is, of course, asking why Romeo had to have been born a Montague, as they were at odds with the Capulets. She may as well have been asking why he had been born, say, a Catholic instead of a Protestant, as both were good Christian faiths, and as sweet as any other religion.

A Note on Sonnet 29

There have been many interpretations of this poem. I will also speculate on its meaning, more as a writer than as a scholar.

When in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes,
I all alone beweep my outcast state,
And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries,
And look upon myself and curse my fate,
Wishing me like to one more rich in hope,
Featured like him, like him with friends possessed,
Desiring this man’s art, and that man’s scope,
With what I most enjoy contented least;
Yet in these thoughts myself almost despising,
Haply I think on thee-and then my state,
Like to the lark at break of day arising
From sullen earth sings hymns at heaven’s gate;
For thy sweet love remembered such wealth brings,
That then I scorn to change my state with kings.

Sonnet 29 is a member of the “Fair Youth” sequence, in which the poet supposedly expresses his love towards a young man. This is one of the poems that led some scholars to believe Shakespeare was homosexual, or that someone else wrote the poems. However, I don’t even necessarily believe the poem alludes to anyone other than the author himself. Yes, the ending definitely sounds like a love poem, but why those specific analogies? The use of the pronoun “one” in the line “wishing me like to one more rich in hope” could simply be a use of the generic, especially given the line “desiring this man’s art, and that man’s scope”, which would imply that the author is simply regretting his own circumstances and wishing he could have the best traits of certain other people.

There exists an interpretation that Shakespeare was despondent after having recently been severely criticized for his work by fellow playwright Robert Greene, and that would seem to make a lot more sense to me than homosexuality. However, I get a different reading given all of the other evidence I have presented in this essay.

A poet always writes from his/her own background and experiences, and often uses thoughts and observances from their past as metaphors for other things. I do not know enough about William Shakespeare’s early life to clearly evaluate why he is “in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes,” nor has fallen into an “outcast state”. Perhaps it is because he had been forced to leave school and seek his fortune without the aid of a father who was fairly wealthy and influential. Or is he actually alluding to John, whom he may have perceived as despairing about having fallen totally out of favor in Elizabethan society because he would not renounce his papist beliefs?

In my mind, the fact that someone’s love is a tonic to the writer is quite secondary in this poem to the despair that is much more completely described. The phrase “then I scorn to change my state with kings” was certainly common enough, especially in a society under a monarchy, to simply be a descriptive metaphor for personal values. However, it may actually have been a direct allusion to the Queen, claiming that the Crown could not heap such disgrace and poverty on Shakespeare as to make him lose all pride and sense of inner worth. In either case, there is a definite sense of “rising above” the adversity caused by having somehow become a societal outcast that would be consistent with resentment at how Elizabeth treated devout Catholics.

Conclusion

In the first place, Romeo and Juliet is not a simple love story, even if read as a piece of literature rather than a political statement. The main topic is actually uncontrolled passions, as the hatred expressed in the play is equally as violent as the love portrayed. The choices that are made by all of the characters — certainly not least by the nurse and the friar — lead to the inevitable deaths of the two young lovers. As in life, not everyone can control the fate of a nation, but each person has control over their own choices to act or not to act, to do good or to do evil. Religious persecution cannot exist without the masses condoning and even participating in the emotional and physical actions of persecution, or, as on the part of many of the Catholics, the attempts to overthrow or assassinate Elizabeth. When seen in the context of the historical and political realities of Elizabethan England, Romeo and Juliet is a true masterpiece of subtle messages.

Part 2: Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet”: A Warning to Elizabeth?

January 16, 2016

Part 2 of my article on why Shakespeare may have had a much deeper message in this play than the perils of love.

Presentation1

Prologues in Shakespeare

As a writer, I wonder why Shakespeare wrote a prologue to Romeo and Juliet. This is not an historical drama, where the audience would need to understand the history of the play to better understand the current action. If taken as a love story, it is certainly not so subtle that the message would not come through without a prior explanation. So one asks: Is this just a normal device that Shakespeare uses in his plays?

None of Shakespeare’s comedies has a prologue, an actual introduction. Taming of the Shrew has an “Induction”, which is two short scenes that precede the actual play, but are set in a lord’s house to set up the play; I have never seen them actually performed. Of the histories, Henry IV, Part II also has an induction, which is a short speech that sort of bridges the gap from Part I. Henry V has a prologue, which is primarily to set up the historical aspects of the play, which in and of itself acts as an introduction to Henry VI. The prologue to Henry VI essentially says the play is going to be very sad, and if a person bought a ticket expecting to watch some sort of comedy, they are going to be very disappointed. Frankly, I’m not sure why Shakespeare bothered with such a prologue, although I have not tried to analyze it as I did with the prologue of Romeo and Juliet. Pericles, Prince of Tyre has a prologue that explains the background of the play so that the audience can understand the current action. The play begins where the prologue leaves us; it does not simply repeat the plot and message of the play, as does Romeo and Juliet. Likewise with Troilus and Cressida.

Frankly, I would have thought that Othello, the Moor of Venice might have done with a prologue, as Shakespeare was also sending a strong political message. This has already been discussed by many scholars, and a posting by AIWASS documents this information (his footnotes are noted, but not included):

In 1596, Queen Elizabeth issued an “open letter” to the Lord Mayor of London, announcing that “there are of late divers blackmoores brought into this realme, of which kinde of people there are allready here to manie,” and ordering that they be deported from the country. (1) One week later, she reiterated her “good pleasure to have those kinde of people sent out of the lande” and commissioned the merchant Casper van Senden to “take up” certain “blackamoores here in this realme and to transport them into Spaine and Portugall.” (2) Finally, in 1601, she complained again about the “great numbers of Negars and Blackamoors which (as she is informed) are crept into this realm,” defamed them as “infidels, having no understanding of Christ or his Gospel,” and, one last time, authorized their deportation. (3)

Othello, the Moor of Venice is believed to have been written in approximately 1603, based on the Italian short story “A Moorish Captain” by Cinthio, first published in 1565. In the opening scene, Iago and Roderigo describe Othello by using racist insults, and Iago invariably refers to Othello as “the Moor”, constantly reducing him to a racial stereotype. Their hatred of him is entirely based on racial prejudice. Yet when Othello actually appears, he is sympathetically portrayed as an articulate, intelligent and introspective human being. His downfall comes from the typical human frailties of trusting his friends too much, being too jealous of his beautiful wife, and acting before learning all of the facts. It has nothing to do with the fact that he is a Moor. It seems clear that Shakespeare has decided, once again, to thinly disguise his thoughts about Elizabeth’s opinions and policies behind the curtains of a play.

Romeo and Juliet

Of all the comedies or tragedies, only Romeo and Juliet has a prologue and epilogue (the latter often delivered by the Prince), both of which directly repeat the message of the play. Thanks to the prologue, the ending is definitely anti-climactic. Why does Shakespeare detract from this dramatic conclusion by giving it away in a prologue that serves no other purpose than to tell us both the ending and the message of that ending? He is not that bad of a writer. Is that a slip, or was Shakespeare trying to implicitly convey his message to Elizabeth without offending her as his contemporaries had done?

Act I Prologue

Two households, both alike in dignity,

In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,

From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,

Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.

From forth the fatal loins of these two foes

A pair of star-cross’d lovers take their life;

Whole misadventured piteous overthrows

Do with their death bury their parents’ strife.

The fearful passage of their death-mark’d love,

And the continuance of their parents’ rage,

From forth the fatal loins of these two foes

A pair of star-cross’d lovers take their life;

Whole misadventured piteous overthrows

Do with their death bury their parents’ strife.

The fearful passage of their death-mark’d love,

And the continuance of their parents’ rage,

Which, but their children’s end, nought could remove,

Is now the two hours’ traffic of our stage;

The which if you with patient ears attend,

What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend.

First, it is interesting that nowhere in the play, especially this prologue, does Shakespeare give the cause of this feud. He leaves it to the imagination of the audience to think of some deed that might have been terrible enough to have caused such intense hatred and on-the-spot bloodshed to occur over a prolonged period of time. This is not particularly significant, but most literature tries to provide some sort of background for the action so that the reader/audience can have a better understanding of the action.

The “ancient grudge that breaks to new mutiny” may well refer to the Wars of the Roses being reprised in the new battle, in this case not only for succession, but for the conflict over religions. I think Shakespeare, although ostensibly a Catholic, showed many times in his plays that he was very tolerant of religion, race, and even the equality of the sexes (I am writing a play that discusses feminism in many of Shakespeare’s plays), and may have really wondered why there had to be a dominance of one over the other (“Two households, both alike in dignity”), especially as they both represented Christianity.

The line, “Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean,” is certainly a clever pun, but I believe it is also a direct reference to the civil wars of the past and present. The people of England, and especially the aristocracy, should be civil towards each other, but instead they are soiling their hands with the blood of their countrymen, neighbors, friends, and even relatives. The play opens with the servants of Lord Capulet discussing the feud, and immediately leads to a physical confrontation. Sampson states that “A dog of the house of Montague moves me,” meaning he gets angry at the Montagues even if he only sees one of their dogs, and he and Gregory prove that by deliberately insulting servants of the Montague household in order to provoke a fight, which is quickly joined by everyone in those clans right up to Lords Montague and Capulet. No one in the city-or country-is exempt from the impacts of the feud.

From forth the fatal loins of these two foes

A pair of star-cross’d lovers take their life;

Whole misadventured piteous overthrows

Do with their death bury their parents’ strife.

The fearful passage of their death-mark’d love,

And the continuance of their parents’ rage,

Which, but their children’s end, nought could remove

While Shakespeare may be referring to Mary and Elizabeth, I think he is more probably including the churches themselves, with those two Queens representing the parent figures of the warring churches within England. The children of England are definitely “star-cross’d”, because they have no control over which household they are born into, nor over the political infighting going on at the top levels. How many deaths will it take until England sees the folly of this conflict, and Elizabeth stops “winking” at the efforts of many of her lords to eradicate the offending Catholics? Elizabeth enjoyed a great general popularity, especially during the early days of her reign, and Shakespeare may have been urging her to put aside this persecution of those she believed were “mutinous” and end the rage. (After all, most of the actual treason was being fomented from outside of England’s borders.) In many ways, civil war is a form of suicide, in that the country is killing itself, and the most innocent victims are usually the young.

Act II, Scene iii

Shakespeare loves long soliloquies, but those usually deal with character exploration and/or the message of the play. The following soliloquy by Friar Lawrence, which is all about the diverse nature of plants, seems to be a non-sequitur. Yes, it introduces a special potion by which Juliet can be put into a “seeming death”, but it would seem to me that Shakespeare could have approached it much differently if that was his sole aim. For example, the friar could have been sitting at a bench stirring up a potion, and the speech could have been much shorter. The focus really should have been on his skills as an apothecary (which he was not, so why not send Juliet to one, as Romeo needed to visit one later for a simple poison?) in that he was able to concoct such a complicated potion, not on the virtues or vices of these various plants.

On the other hand, if we read this passage as a complicated, very clever metaphor rather than actually being about plants, we do indeed find a soliloquy dealing with the true message of the play. Once we get past the time of day, we find these lines:

The earth that’s nature’s mother is her tomb;

What is her burying grave that is her womb,

And from her womb children of divers kind

We sucking on her natural bosom find,

Many for many virtues excellent,

None but for some and yet all different.

The first two lines describe the fact that the earth gives birth to life, and yet all things return to the earth on their death. The Catholic faith also embraces this view, calling itself the “mother church” with all people being her children. The Church of England also retained this view, still calling its religious leaders “father”, “mother”, “brother” and “sister”. In this metaphor the “children” represent plants, yet could easily also mean real children. Those children are extremely diverse, some have excellent virtues, and all are good for something, although all are quite different. Perhaps all churches, all faiths, also have their virtues which they offer their followers.

O, mickle is the powerful grace that lies

In herbs, plants, stones, and their true qualities:

For nought so vile that on the earth doth live

But to the earth some special good doth give

This works well to describe many plants, although we have certainly not found uses for even the majority of plants. However, it is probably true that there are no humans — or not many — so vile that they cannot in some way contribute to the good of mankind. No matter what religion a citizen of England may embrace, I believe Shakespeare was saying that they could still be loyal and useful to England.

Nor aught so good but strain’d from that fair use

Revolts from true birth, stumbling on abuse:

Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied;

And vice sometimes by action dignified

If plants have the capacity for both good and evil uses, then how can they be judged to “revolt from true birth”? Is Shakespeare implying that there is an inherent good or evil to plants? However, if we look at this as the intent of religion, then we can certainly understand that the good intents, being “strain’d from that fair use”, truly does revolt from its original intent, and more than stumbles “on abuse”. The purpose of religion should be to comfort and unite people, not to incite them to violence against others simply because they do not share the same beliefs. Yet many churches have indeed dignified despicable vices in the excuse that they were attempting to bring the “true religion to all people.

Within the infant rind of this small flower

Poison hath residence and medicine power:

For this, being smelt, with that part cheers each part;

Being tasted, slays all senses with the heart.

Two such opposed kings encamp them still

In man as well as herbs, grace and rude will;

And where the worser is predominant,

Full soon the canker death eats up that plant.

Again, I believe the “flower” is religion, which holds the capacity to be used for great ill or for great good. If one smells it delicately, treating it as a delicious bouquet, it can enrich society. If one ingests it, gorges on it, then it does indeed slay “all senses with the heart”. That is what can lead to such extremes as the Inquisition and conversion by torture, to blanket condemnation of anyone who worships in the least differently, even if they are worshipping the same god and the same savior! In England, religious zealotry had already led to great persecution, and Shakespeare was afraid that, if unchecked, it could become a religious pogrom.

While “Two such opposed kings encamp them still” is typical Shakespearean metaphor, it is interesting to note that the literal allusion is to two opposing monarchs at war. The abstract allusion is to the great opposing forces that war within both these supposed plants and all humans, that of “grace and rude will”, or good and evil. Although all people must choose which will rule them, Elizabeth has the choice of which will eventually take precedence in the country. If she allows hatred and persecution to rule, the country will be shortly devoured by its self-generated cancer.

To come: Part 3, the conclusion