- What's up, guys? It's Rowan.
- And Brooklyn here from Art of Smart TV,
giving you another episode of
the HSC English Lit Program,
affectionately known as #help.
One of the keys areas that we
see students struggling with
in the HSC is analysis.
It's one of those key skills that you need
to develop in the HSC to do really well
and make sure that you
get those band sixes.
It's even more important now
that we have the new
HSC syllabus coming in
because we need to learn
how to write analysis
on the spot, and we
can't just memorize it.
- Now in this episode,
we're going to be diving in
and showing you how to analyze
"King Henry IV Part One."
Now this is part of module
B in HSC Advanced English,
and one of the things we found from years
of supporting students through the HSC
is that Shakespeare tends to be one
of those things that causes a lot
of students to become a little unstuck.
It's challenging to understand,
it can be more difficult analyze,
and so what we're hoping
to do in this episode
is really to show you the steps that
are required how you would
break down any Shakespeare play,
for that matter, in terms of analysis.
Now of course, we're using
"King Henry IV" as the example,
but really, we're going to be
also teaching you the skills
that you need so that if
you're doing "The Tempest"
or you're doing "The Merchant of Venice,"
as other examples as part-
- Or if you're one
of those unlucky STEM students doing
"A Midsummer Night's Dream."
- Oh, that!
- I haven't actually heard
of any of them; they're
a myth as far as I know.
But apparently, they exist.
- So if you are one of those students,
you're going to need to learn
how to analyze Shakespeare,
and that's what I hope it will be.
It'll help you learn how to analyze
and also equip you for "Henry IV."
So in the process, we're
also going to show you
how to construct a really
powerful paragraph.
So Brooklyn, what's the key idea
that we're going to be
exploring and unpacking
as we analyze "King Henry IV" today?
- Great, so the key focus idea that we're
going to look at is our topic sentence
for our paragraph is going to be honor,
and that's a pretty popular topic
to look at in "King Henry."
So I guess what the point here is
is we don't just want to
say in our topic sentence,
"We're going to talk about honor."
We're going to go a bit
deeper than that and say,
"Okay, what is it that
we're actually going
to say about honor?"
And that's really what's
going to help us create that
critical voice that we need
in module B because if we just
talk about honor, flatly say,
"I'm talking about honor,"
that's not critical.
That's not showing that you
have your own perspective.
Everybody knows that honor
is a theme in "King Henry."
What you need to do is look at a theme
and show okay, what is your
perspective on this theme?
What is your own personal interpretation?
So what we're going to do is go
through our own personal
interpretation of this,
which is looking at how,
there are a few different ways
that honor is shown in "King Henry,"
a few different conflicting
and contrasting ways.
And I guess the core thing
is how these conflicting,
contrasting ways of looking
at honor influence Hal's honor
at the end and his pursuit of
honor at the end of the play.
- Good, so one of the things
we've highlighted here
is you've got an idea, of course,
that you're unpacking in
particular in the paragraph.
It's important that it's not
just about the theme honor.
We've got to say something
about honor, and in our case,
we're going to be unpacking
the different types
of honor that see in
"King Henry" and the way,
therefore, it influences Hal
in his own pursuit of honor.
So that's really what we're
unpacking, is that right?
- Yeah, exactly.
So what's our first quote,
Rowan, for this paragraph?
- Our first quote comes
from the very first scene
in the play, and this is
when King Henry says he wants
"a son who is the theme of honor's tongue.
Amongst a grove, the
very straightest plant."
- All right, and in English? (chuckles)
- So King Henry here is really talking
about Hotspur, and he's
saying that Hotspur
is so honorable that
if honor was a person,
Hotspur would be the main
theme that he talked about.
And not only is he saying that,
he's also saying if we
think about a grove,
which is just a group of trees,
Hotspur would also be the
tallest and straightest tree,
so he would be the most honorable of all.
- Yeah, great, exactly.
So there's a couple of
techniques that we can see here.
You already pointed out this idea
that he's talking about
honor as if it's a person.
So obvious technique for
that is personification.
Yeah, and the effect of this is
that he's really emphasizing
Hotspur's honor so much
that Hotspur actually
becomes a paragon of honor.
And a paragon is when a person or a thing
is represented as a perfect
example of a concept.
So that concept is honor,
and Hotspur is the
perfect example of that.
Yeah.
- Great, so now this
is only half the quote.
So the other half of the
quote really described
what Hotspur's honor is like.
So he's got honor, most
honorable. What is it like?
And so the king describes it
like a straight tree, right?
And this metaphor is a great
representation of the sort
of honor we see from
Hotspur throughout the play,
so the fact that his honor
is always straightforward.
If someone wrongs him, the honorable thing
is to get revenge, right?
It's a pretty simple,
straightforward framework for honor,
and he doesn't hide behind fancy language
and metaphors like we see
Hal do throughout the play.
- Yeah, exactly, thank you.
And I guess that brings
us to our next point
about Hotspur's honor being
so straightforward and honest.
He doesn't have all these fancy ideas
like Henry and Hal do and
doesn't, as Rowan just said,
he doesn't use all that
metaphorical language.
He just wants his revenge.
He's just like, "You've hurt me.
I'm going to hurt you
back. I want revenge."
There's no trickery or
manipulation behind it.
There's no performance.
So we have this quote
here, and the quote is,
"we'll be revenged on
him," we being Hotspur
and all his mates (laughs) who
want to get King Henry back.
So I guess we can see
here he's not speaking
in the fluffy metaphors
talking about trees
and groves like (laughs) King Henry does
and a lot of the other characters do.
- So then, if we're not
talking about metaphorical,
figurative, poetic language here,
what's the technique that we're using?
- Yeah, so this is where
it gets interesting.
That's exactly the point.
Our technique is almost
that there is no technique,
which seems like a silly
counterintuitive thing
to say in an essay, and
don't word it like that.
I guess what we need to remember
is when we're analyzing quotes,
what we're doing is we're looking
at how the language features that a poet
or an author or a playwright is using
is creating a meaning or effect.
And what Shakespeare is doing here
is he's creating meaning from the fact
that Hotspur doesn't have fancy language,
and that meaning is able
to elucidate Hotspur's character itself
that he's just a straightforward guy.
He just says what he wants.
He doesn't hide it behind
all this fancy language.
- So now Hotspur even points
this out himself, right?
So he has a bit of a rant
about how much he hates poetry,
which, just as a side point,
funny because it's Shakespeare
that's writing this and it's, anyway,
that's a whole little side point
that I think's nice and humorous.
But he calls it "mincing poetry,"
which is basically that
he finds poetry contrived
and irritating, which is
probably how you feel sometimes,
by the way, when you read Shakespeare.
- Great, so yeah, we've just looked
at one of the versions
of honor in the play,
and in complete contrast to
this, we have Falstaff's honor.
And he sees honor as a complete construct.
He barely even believes it exists.
He thinks it's this idea
that kings have created
in order to make people do what they say,
and make people go to war.
So basically, the way Falstaff sees it
is honor is a performance.
People are just deceiving people
through this idea of honor.
- And before we move on this,
I think what's interesting is,
at least personally, I find
through both these characters.
They're both, as you've highlighted,
polar ends of perspectives.
But they're both compelling
in their own ways
in terms of there's something attractive
about Hotspur's simplicity
in how he views honor.
But equally, there's
something very compelling
about Falstaff's critique
of honor as a tool
that is being used to
manipulate and influence people.
Not jumping in, though, to Falstaff,
he expresses this, and
to express it, he says,
"What is that, honor? Air."
What is he talking about?
- Great.
- What are the techniques?
- Yeah, so I think there's
truly obvious techniques
in this one.
So we've got rhetorical
questioning, "What is that, honor?"
He's just said a few things about honor,
so that's why the word that is
there if you go read the bit.
And then, yeah, so we've got
this rhetorical question,
and then we've also got him answering
with a metaphor and saying
honor is a metaphor for air,
or air is a metaphor
for honor, (indistinct).
Yeah.
- Cool, so we've got
two techniques, right?
We've got rhetorical questioning.
We've got a metaphor.
Do we talk about one,
both? What do we do here?
- Yeah, so I think the more techniques
that you can show your
marker that you've seen
in your quote, the better.
But remember, it's always important
to show the effect of the technique.
So yeah, make sure you're always showing
how does the effect of this
technique create meaning?
So sometimes, I guess what you can do
is you can be like, "Okay,
the effect of this technique
is this, the effect of the
other technique is this,
and then analyze them together
and bring them together to
show how that links to a point.
- Cool, so what we're talking about here
is don't technique stuff.
And that's one of the things
that I often see in essays
where someone's trying to
get as many techniques in,
but they're not actually
unpacking and exploring them.
And so the critical thing here
is if you're going to expand,
essentially, on both techniques
and how they contribute
to create meaning, you put 'em both in.
But don't, whatever you do, put two in
and only talk about one;
that's the critical thing.
So we've got rhetorical questioning here.
And so clearly here, the point of that
is very much like any
good rhetorical question
is designed to get the
reader, the audience
to themselves ask the question,
and in this case, well,
what is honor, right?
So it's trying to get an
audience to self reflect
on is honor something that is
actually meaningful to them?
But on top of this, though,
he actually then goes
and answers the question.
So he's not entirely wanting our audience
to think for themselves.
He's (laughing) certainly
wanting to influence-
- I think, if I just cut in there,
the way I would interpret that
is Shakespeare's trying
to make the audience think
for themselves through
the rhetorical question,
but then Falstaff has an answer to that.
So then he's like, "Well,
this is Falstaff's perspective
on it, but still, you guys need to decide
for yourselves what you think honor is."
- Cool, that's a great
way to look at it as well.
And so I think if we bring it back now,
Falstaff's answer is,
"Well, honor is air."
And it's interesting because I think
if we look at that, one of the takes
and certainly Falstaff's perspective on it
is that, well, it has no substance, right?
You can't see it, and therefore,
it is just, it's meaningless;
it's a mere performance.
The thing that I do
want to highlight here,
which this is just for a bit of fun,
I wouldn't necessarily go with this,
is that air is, of course,
critical for life. (laughs)
It's critical to breathe, right?
And so I think maybe there's a little bit
of irony underneath this is that,
on the one hand, yes, it's meaningless,
it's unseen, it lacks substance.
But perhaps if you work-
- I think it's maybe the idea
that society, sorry, it's maybe that idea
that society is running on it.
Despite the fact that it is meaningless,
we have society running
on it like the whole world
in "The War of the Roses" that
Shakespeare's writing about
in the moment.
It's about people going to
battle and being soldiers,
and it's all to do with honor.
So it's almost like the
air that they're breathing,
but at the same time, it is meaningless.
- Awesome.
So why is this important?
Why is this an important,
this idea of performance,
an important thing?
- Yeah, so this thing of
performance is really important.
When we're talking about performance,
we're talking about this idea of something
not being real or authentic.
When someone is performing something,
you don't see their real self.
You see this fake self that they've put on
to show you to give a false
impression of themselves.
So this is really important
in the play for two reasons.
The first one is that
it literally is a play.
"King Henry IV Part One" is a play.
So it's, yeah, funny and almost ironic
that there's a criticism
of performance here
when the play itself is, it's
a play, it's a performance.
So we go into metatheater here.
The second reason that's really important
is because Falstaff and
Hal actually pass time
in the tavern creating
their own performances.
So there's a couple of occasions
where Hal and Falstaff is like,
"Oh, let's make a play of
this" or "Let's act this out."
He's mocking Hotspur in one of them.
He's, yeah, talking about Hotspur's wife.
But anyway, so this is also
going to be super important
when we start to look at, well,
how have these true forms of honor
that we've just looked at
influenced Hal as a character
because not only has
Falstaff's perspective
on honor influenced Hal
and the way he sees it
as performative but
through his friendship,
through Hal and Falstaff's friendship,
Hal has learnt this idea of performance.
So it's come through his actions
in the way that he sees honor.
- But he's also clearly influenced
by his father, isn't he?
- Yeah, exactly, so that's what we-
- The expectations that King
Henry has for if Hotspur
is the paragon of honor,
that's the message.
At the same time, the conflicting message,
that Hal's experiencing.
So we see these two types of honor.
We've got Hotspur, the
forthright, honest form of honor,
no games, no deception, no performance,
just get straight in,
which is what King Henry's expectation is
of his (indistinct).
And on the other hand, we've got Falstaff.
Honor is this deceitful performance.
It's a tool to get people to go
and fight for a king and die.
So I guess how do these
come together, then,
these conflicting views of honor,
to shape how Hal's own
pursuit of honor in the play?
- Cool, so Hal isn't really
like either of these people,
but he's this strange
amalgamation of both of them.
So he's super far away from Falstaff
who is saying that honor
doesn't even exist.
We should just disregard
it because it's just crap,
and it makes people die in wars. (laughs)
And that's obviously not
Hal 'cause Hal goes to war.
He becomes this super, well, he's seen
as this super honorable guy at the end.
- And-
- He hacks it, doesn't he?
- [Brooklyn] Sorry?
- He hacks the system.
- Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
So he's not that. He's
also not like Hotspur.
He does use all that fancy
language, and I guess the thing
is he does not have that straightforward,
authentic sort of honor at all.
What Hal actually is is
somewhere in between.
He has this idea of
honor as a performance,
which I think he's gained from Falstaff.
And I don't think it's really
what Falstaff wanted him to gain.
Probably wanted him to
reject honor entirely.
But he's learned to understand
that honor is a performance,
and he's utilized the fact
that it is a performance in
order to manipulate others
and make himself seem really good
and really honorable and really glorious
at the end of the play
when he saves his dad
from Douglas and when he kills Hotspur
and when he's this amazing,
honorable guy that...
It's how a lot of people have
always interpreted Hotspur,
I mean, sorry, have always
interpreted Hal to be.
- So Hal really learns to play the game.
That's the way that I really view it
is that he learns okay,
society's rigged right now
despite Falstaff's criticism of honor.
Actually, honor is the thing
that everyone looks up to,
and yet at the same time,
because it's a essentially performative,
if I get good performing it, essentially,
I'm going to be able
to have that perception
of being this incredibly honorable person
and really win the game,
which I think is interesting
for the end outcome of
certainly the play itself.
Now I know there's a key
place that we see this
in the play in terms of
there's a famous speech
in Act One Scene One;
is that right, Brooklyn?
- Yeah, exactly.
- And so what does he say in that speech?
- Yeah, so the quote that we've got here
is he's speaking about
himself in this quote
in third person that he
says, "He may be wondered at
by breaking through the
foul and ugly mists."
And that might not make
sense right away to you
if you haven't read the play
or haven't read it in depth.
But basically, what's going on
here is we have this metaphor
that is talking about this idea of...
The fact that he's in the tavern
is like metaphorical of an
ugly cloud covering up the sun.
So he's the sun, and he's in the tavern,
and he's living this
terrible, delinquent life
where he's just drinking
and wasting his time away.
So that's like this ugly,
ugly cloud that hides him.
And then he, at the end of the play,
what he's saying he's going to do
is he's going to burst through the clouds
in the glorious radiance of the sun.
In the end, basically,
the point he's making
is if we look at the quote here,
it says he may be more wondered
at because he's done this.
So the fact that he was
in the clouds first,
the tavern first, and
then he breaks through,
makes him even more wonderful than
if he was just a sun the whole time.
So it's that idea of we
appreciate the sun more
when it comes out from behind the clouds.
- And it also shows the development,
like wow, to go from the taverns
to become, maybe by the end of it,
maybe not quite the paragon but certainly,
the transformation that Hal undergoes
is so significant, that's
what makes it impressive.
And so it definitely, though, still,
I feel, really echoes this
element of performance in Hal
that, actually, this is a performance.
It's the hero's journey
playing out in some respects,
going from the darkness to the light.
- Mm, I think it's
really important, though,
that it's not an authentic
hero's (laughs) journey, though.
He's constructed this hero's journey
- Not really, definitely.
- for himself,
and that makes us really dubious
and really wary at the end
when he does actually
end up saving the day,
saving his dad from Douglas
and killing Hotspur.
And it makes us think,
"Well, did he really have
a moral transformation?"
And a lot of people
who interpret this play
will say that yes, he did
have a moral transformation.
But I guess our interpretation
and where we differ from
that is what we're saying is,
"Well, did he really have
that moral transformation,
or was it his plan all along
to just make himself look really good?"
Is this honor that he has at the end
when he turns out to be so amazing?
Is that just a performance
that he's put on?
Cool, so what that does is it brings us
to our critic quote who
talks about this idea.
Rowan, can you read us
our critic quote, please?
- Yeah, I can.
And so I think the thing
we need to understand
is that critics are really
important as part of module B,
and that's because what you're needing
to do with part of module B is really show
that you're engaging with
the critical perspectives
about the text.
Ultimately, it's a critical study here.
So the critic that
we're going to reference
is a guy called Matthew H. Wikander.
I'm probably mispronouncing
this guy's name.
- Wikanda? I don't know.
- Wikanda. It sounds like Wakanda from-
- Yeah, exactly, that's
what, that was my thought.
- Go with that. That sounds cool, right?
And so he basically says that
the scheming, conniving nature
of this speech that Hal gives really shows
that we "feel ourselves caught short
by this description of Hal's strategy
because it suggests the fraud."
And so we're using that to really,
in this case, reinforce our perspective
that we're trying to
highlight of Hal's honor here,
which is that maybe it's
not really authentic.
Maybe, actually, he's just
decided to game the system
and use it performatively
to his own benefit
to show that he's honorable when,
really, he's the same
person underneath all that.
- Yeah, and I think
that's a really good way
that we've used the quote there,
and that's that we've been really specific
in the way that critic quote has come in.
So it hasn't just been
this vague general idea.
It's actually a quote about the example
that we have just given in our paragraph.
So that's really a great
way to use critic quotes
is show that you've done a lot of reading
because if you can literally find a quote
that's about the example you're giving,
that shows the more further
depth of understanding
from what the critics are
saying about the text.
- Awesome.
So to sum it all up, we've
got Henry expecting Hal,
his son, to have that
straightforward, vengeful style
of honor, which is really typified,
or the archetype for
that is really Hotspur
throughout the play.
Now this is, of course, conflicted
by the honor that's presented
or the image of honor
that's certainly presented by Falstaff,
which is that it's a construct,
that it is this thing, a fictional thing
that is being used to cause people
to do things that they may not want.
Now, of course, ultimately, what we see
is that Hal's eventual honor
that we see represented
is really an amalgamation, right?
It's somewhere in the middle.
It's somewhat deceptive and performative.
It's made to appease straightforward.
We're left at the end
with this sense that,
while Hal is held up as a beacon of honor,
maybe it's not really as authentic
as he would at least like us to believe.
- Yeah.
And I think, yeah, if you fit
this into a essay as a whole,
you don't have to do this,
but one thing you can do
is you can talk about
the idea of Shakespeare,
like maybe a thesis could be about
how Shakespeare is forcing
us to ask questions
about the nature of honoring leadership
and so on rather than giving
us and providing us answers.
And that's really what I think he does
through these three forms of honor.
He doesn't say this honor is
better or this honor is better
'cause I guess Hal's
honor is really effective,
but he shows us that
it's also super immoral
(laughs) and like a bit dodgy.
So, yeah, you go.
- That comes back
to the idea that we shared earlier
that, really, at the end of the day,
all three types of honor
that are presented,
in their own rights, are very compelling.
- Mm, yeah, absolutely.
- And so yeah, I think
you're very right there.
Shakespeare, at least he certainly
is not making it clear
which one is the right one.
It's really left up to us as the reader
to decide, well, I think
it's, I agree with Henry.
Hotspur, that's honor.
- So what team are you on, Rowan?
Who's you're favorite honor?
- Look, I'm...
Part of me loved Falstaff, but I think,
in the end I'd probably-
- I knew you were going to
say you were a, well, Hotspur?
- No, no, no!
I think I would end up sitting with
- Hal.
- Hal on this one, yeah.
- Oh, no way! That's crazy.
Hal is the worst. I hate Hal.
- I'm so torn, right?
I'm so torn because part of
Hotspur definitely appeals,
just the idea of
integrity, say what you do,
do what you say sort of thing.
That's how I really view Hotspur.
And so part of me is like yes.
And then on the same
time, though, I'm like,
"Well, but they're just
getting people killed over
what is something that is
actually not that meaningful,"
which is why then I move
all (laughs) the way back
to Falstaff, and I'm like,
"Well, I get his point."
- Ah, I see.
- Things that...
Why fight over this?
Why kill so many people?
And I guess that's why I
look at that in that context,
and then in the middle, well, maybe that's
where Hal's approach, then,
ends up bouncing the two.
How do we do it?
Which is why, in the end,
I feel quite conflicted.
Maybe how Hal actually
feels, and I see then.
And of course, if we were to take this,
I think, out of the
context of war and fighting
over the royal house, I think yeah,
my personal approach would
probably lean a little more
to Hotspur, just in the sense of, yeah.
- Being a
- This is what it is, right?
- authentic guy?
Yeah, I'm a Hal hater. I
think he's so inauthentic.
Yeah, he's the worst.
I really, really like Hotspur
'cause I definitely have a
soft spot for that authenticity
that he has, and he's
just so, I don't know,
it's kind of cute how
straightforward he is. (laughs)
- (indistinct) I knew you
- But yeah.
- but I feel (muffled speaking)
- No, yeah, I think that,
but he is really compelling in a way.
But then definitely my favorite,
I would have to say, is Falstaff.
I love his cynicism. I'm a
cynic through and through.
So yeah, I've been a Falstaff.
- So guys, we left that till the very end.
So that's a little Easter
egg at the very end,
made it all the way through.
So if you made it all the way through,
there's a little Easter egg at the end.
Let us know below in the
comments, which team are you?
Are you a team Hal?
Are you a team Hotspur?
Are you a team Falstaff, and why?
- Are you a team King Henry?
I think he's a bit useful to
us as well, but maybe you are.
- Yeah, let us know what team you're on,
leave it in the comments below.
Now of course, if you haven't already,
hit the subscribe button.
We're going to bring loads more videos,
English, other subjects,
study tips and more.
So make sure that you hit subscribe
so you stay in touch with videos
as we bring them out every single week.
If there's anything Brooklyn
and I can do to help,
leave a comment below.
If there's something you don't understand
about "King Henry IV,"
anything we've shared
in the video today, let us know,
and either one of us on our team
will jump on and get you your answer.
Of course, if you need more support,
you've got a "King Henry" essay,
you're staring at it,
it's freaking you out,
we've got an incredible
team of teachers, tutors,
and mentors that can work with you.
So don't by shy. Get in touch with us.
Visit artofsmart.com.au.
Otherwise, stay safe, and we will see you
in our next episode of #help.
(bright upbeat music)
