REIMAGINING DESIRE AND IDENTITY IN THE TITLE CHARACTERS OF HAMLET AND RICHARD III IN A SOUTH AFRICAN CONTEXT By MATTHEUS HEYDENRYCH Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements in respect of the Doctoral Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY WITH SPECIALISATION IN DRAMA AND THEATRE ARTS in the Department of Drama and Theatre Arts in the Faculty of the Humanities at the University of the Free State 28 JULY 2023 Promotor: Professor Anthea van Jaarsveld (University of the Free State) Page | i Page | ii Page | iii DECLARATION I, Mattheus Heydenrych, declare the following: 1. The thesis that I herewith submit for the degree Doctor of Philosophy with specialisation in Drama And Theatre Arts at the University of the Free State, is my independent work and that I have not previously submitted it for qualification at another institution of higher education. 2. I am aware that the copyright is vested in the University of the Free State. 3. All royalties as regards to intellectual property that was developed during the course of and/or in connection with the study at the University of the Free State, will accrue to the University. ________________________ Mattheus Heydenrych 28 July 2023 Page | iv ABSTRACT During my Master’s studies in Theatre Directing at East 15 Acting School, London, a question regularly asked by my lecturer, Tony Clark, was: ‘If you were to direct a Shakespeare play now, why would you do it? What would the play say today?’ I started asking myself, ‘If I were to transpose a Shakespeare play into a modern context, what new perspectives and interpretations could be arrived at if I were to read it from a queer perspective? How would that influence the identity and desires of the characters and the interpretation thereof?’ The study aimed to examine what would happen if the sexuality of the characters Richard and Hamlet were changed by transposing Hamlet and Richard III, into queer adaptations and how that would change the identity and desires of the title characters in the new adaptations. To do this, the study identified ‘unspoken or unconscious lesbian, gay, or queer presence’, or what will be referred to as queer cues, utilising the coding process of Constructivist-Grounded Theory in Hamlet and Richard III by William Shakespeare. Queer Theory has significantly impacted literary analysis. It has broadened the field’s focus beyond conventional binary conceptions of gender and sexuality. Using Queer Theory, one can study how gender and sexuality are disrupted and challenged in texts and how these categories are created and performed through language and narrative. Similarities exist between Queer Theory and Lesbian, Gay, and Queer Criticism (LGQC) as they both examine gender and sexuality. However, their approaches and points of focus are slightly different. While LGQC focuses on analysing particular cultural representations, Queer Theory deconstructs binary categories. One of the fundamental ideas of LGQC is the quest for textual evidence, or rather cues, in the literary interpretation of texts. In most cases, these cues are blatant homoerotic imagery and same-sex interactions, but sometimes these cues are subtle and create a homoerotic atmosphere in a heterosexual work. Several examples of subtle “unspoken or unconscious” cues exist, but this study predominantly focuses on homosocial bonding. In Tyson (2006), homosocial bonding is explained as portraying a strong emotional bond between characters of the same sex. The study aimed to examine which queer cues could be identified in the scripts through a queer reading and how that influenced the transposition of the scripts into new queer adaptations. The focus of this study was mainly on gay sensibility. A preliminary analysis made it clear that after examining the characters’ interactions with each other, there were subtle queer cues evident in Richard III and Hamlet. Other events and interactions were then Page | v analysed to see if they supported these cues. In my opinion, the results pointed to elements of homosocial bonding between the relevant characters, which I interpreted as indications that Richard and Hamlet were gay men. As mentioned above, the study applied the coding process of Constructivist-Grounded Theory. The first step is Initial Coding, followed by Focussed Coding, where categories are refined, and then finally, theory development. The Initial Coding process and the process of queer reading identified queer cues in the scripts of Richard III and Hamlet. For these queer cues to be identified, the study focussed on the concept of homosocial bonding and queer interpretation, seeing that the main focus of this study’s inquiry was the relationship between Richard and Tyrrel, and Hamlet and Horatio. The study found that the scripts indeed supported a queer interpretation of Richard III and Hamlet. During the Focused Coding process, other moments and events in the scripts were identified that can now be interpreted from a queer perspective. During the memo-writing process of Focused Coding, the characters of Tyrrel (in Richard III) and Horatio (in Hamlet) were examined to establish how their interactions supported a queer interpretation. The last part of the coding process (Memo-Writing) was transposing Hamlet and Richard III into queer adaptations, where Richard and Tyrrel and Hamlet and Horatio were placed in same-sex relationships. Nevertheless, when reading the queer adaptations, the study found that the queer interpretations of these plays could still not ‘present’ themselves in the scripts alone. A new question emerged: ‘How to present the queer cues in the new queer adaptations of Hamlet and Richard III?’ The study, therefore, included examing performances of Hamlet and Richard III, where it was found that the transposition to the stage was necessary to bring to life the ‘queer interpretations’ of the title characters. Clearly, the study needed to include actors’ performances to determine how the characters’ sexuality influenced their identities and desires. The actor’s interpretation and delivery of the lines, their gestures, and actions brought the queer interpretation of the scripts to the forefront. Page | vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, my deepest gratitude goes to my supervisor, Prof Anthea van Jaarsveld for your unique enthusiasm for the study, your guidance, patience, and commitment. Your friendly and honest comments and excellent knowledge of both theory and analytical techniques in adaptation and translation made the writing of the articles a joyous journey. I am genuinely grateful for your stepping in after losing my previous supervisors. I am immensely grateful to have had you as my supervisor! Second, I would like to acknowledge Prof. Nico Luwes, my mentor, colleague, and friend. Thank you for believing in me during my undergraduate studies, for your encouragement and inspiration as a performing artist, for giving me the opportunity and support to visit the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Canada, and for my studies at East 15 Acting School, England, and GITIS, Russia. I am so lucky to have you in my life as an artist and theatre practitioner; you make it so much richer! Third, I would like to acknowledge the financial support from the University of the Free State’s Faculty of the Humanities to complete my thesis. Fourth, the academics, administrative staff, and students of the Department of Drama and Theatre Arts at the UFS for showing their support and kindness during this journey. Fifth, Mr Johann Nel for providing thorough language editing and Mr Paquot for providing referencing assistance. Finally, and equally important, is the support from my family and friends. Your belief in me and words of encouragement kept me going forward. I want to make special mention of my father. He supported my career in the performing arts. Although he passed on, his words of encouragement and belief in me shall continue to impact me. 1 | P a g e Table of Contents DECLARATION ..................................................................................................................... iii ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................... vi Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................. 4 1. Background/Rationale ..................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Rational behind a queer interpretation 4 1.2 Queer Theoretical Background 6 1.2.1 Queer Theory and the term ‘queer’ .......................................................................................... 6 1.2.2 Homosocial bonding and the default reader ........................................................................... 8 1.3 Rational behind the choice for Richard III: identity and deformity 10 1.4 Rational behind the choice of Hamlet: struggle and identity 12 2. Research problem and objectives .................................................................................... 13 3. Research design and research methodology ................................................................... 14 4. Outline of study ................................................................................................................ 15 5. Value of the research ........................................................................................................ 16 6. List of references .............................................................................................................. 18 Chapter 2 (Article 1): Reimagining Desire and Identity in the Title Characters of Hamlet and Richard III: a Constructivist-Grounded Theory Approach. ............................................ 20 1. Prologue ............................................................................................................................ 21 1.1 Why Richard 21 1.1.1 Richard, as a political figure ..................................................................................................... 21 1.1.2 Richard’s deformity ................................................................................................................... 25 1.2 Why Hamlet 27 1.3 Why Queer 29 2. Research questions ........................................................................................................... 30 3. The Methodology ............................................................................................................. 31 3.1 Queer Theory and the Case of Queer Cues 33 3.2 Constructivist-Grounded Theory (CGT) as blueprint 36 3.3 Initial Coding and the process of queer reading 40 3.4 Initial Coding in Richard III and Hamlet 42 3.5 Focused Coding and Memo-Writing: the process of transposing. 54 3.6 Focus Coding and Memo-Writing in Richard III and Hamlet 56 4. Epilogue: Post-Focus Coding .......................................................................................... 76 5. List of references .............................................................................................................. 78 2 | P a g e Chapter 3 (Article 2): ‘Then since the Heauens haue shap’d my Body so’: Will the Political ‘Queer’ Richard Please Stand Up? ........................................................................................... 81 1. Prologue ............................................................................................................................ 82 2. Shakespeare’s Richard III ................................................................................................ 85 2.1 Shakespeare and the Tudor-history of Richard III 85 2.2 Shakespeare, The Lord Chamberlain’s Men and Sir Robert Cecil 86 2.3 The Queen’s Ninth Parliament and Richard III 88 2.4 Robert Cecil and Richard III 89 2.5 The evolution of staging Richard III 90 3. The South African Richard III ......................................................................................... 94 3.1 Political incidents in South Africa that influenced the concept 95 3.1.1 Use of Religion in political propaganda ................................................................................. 95 3.1.2 The chant ‘Kill the boer, kill the farmer’ and farm murders. .............................................. 96 3.1.3 ESKOM’s problem with supplying sufficient electricity for the country. ........................ 97 3.2 Strikes by transport and mine workers. 98 3.2.1 August 2012: The Marikana Massacre. ................................................................................... 98 3.2.2 September 2012: Violent strikes by transport workers ...................................................... 100 4. Concept ........................................................................................................................... 102 4.1 The modern adaptation of Richard III 102 5. Synopsis .......................................................................................................................... 104 5.1 Act 1, Scene 1 (outside in a street - midday) 104 5.2 Act 1, Scene 2 (outside in the street - early morning) 107 5.3 Act 1, Scene 3 (outside in street - late afternoon) 108 5.4 Act 1, Scene 4 (inside prison - the same day, evening) 111 5.5 Act 2, Scene 1 (outside in street - the same evening) 113 5.6 Act 2, Scene 2 (outside in street - the next day, early morning) 115 5.7 Act 3, Scene 1 (outside in street - Elizabeth and party on the bridge - Richard and party in the street - evening of the same day) 115 5.8 Act 3, Scene 2 (outside in street - the next day, early morning) 117 5.9 Act 3, Scene 3 (same as before - later in the day, midday) 118 5.10 Act 3, Scene 4 (meeting hall - same day, midday) 119 5.11 Act 4, Scene 1 (outside the prison - the next day, early morning) 120 5.12 Act 4, Scene 1.1 (the same day, midday) 120 5.13 Act 4, Scene 2 (outside - six months later, midday) 120 5.14 Act 4, Scene 3 (one area inside prison, another area the same as before - evening of the same day) 123 3 | P a g e 5.15 Act 4, Scene 4 (outside in the street - the next day, early morning) 124 5.16 Act 5, Scene 1 (outside somewhere - the same day, late afternoon/evening) 126 5.17 Act 5, Scene 2 (outside in the street - the next day, early morning) 128 6. Epilogue .......................................................................................................................... 129 7. List of references ............................................................................................................ 131 Chapter 4 (Article 3): ‘To tell our Storie’: Reflections on a Queer Adaptation of Hamlet in Twenty-first Century South Africa. ........................................................................................ 134 1. Prologue .......................................................................................................................... 135 2. The ‘dependent’ Hamlet ................................................................................................ 139 3. My ‘decolonised’ Hamlet ............................................................................................... 140 4. The Adaptation ............................................................................................................... 142 4.1 Act 1, scene 1 142 4.2 Act 1, scene2 142 4.3 Act 1, scene 4 144 4.4 Act 2 145 4.5 Act 3, scene 1 145 4.6 Act 3, scene 2 148 4.7 Act 3, scene 3 149 4.8 Act 4, scene 5 149 4.9 Act 4, scene 6 149 4.10 Act 5, scene 2 150 5. Epilogue .......................................................................................................................... 152 6. List of references ............................................................................................................ 154 Chapter 5: Denouement ......................................................................................................... 157 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 161 Addenda .................................................................................................................................. 170 Richard III script 171 Hamlet script 172 Published article ‘To tell our Storie’: Reflections on a Queer Adaptation of Hamlet in Twenty-first Century South Africa 173 Page | iv ABSTRACT During my Master’s studies in Theatre Directing at East 15 Acting School, London, a question regularly asked by my lecturer, Tony Clark, was: ‘If you were to direct a Shakespeare play now, why would you do it? What would the play say today?’ I started asking myself, ‘If I were to transpose a Shakespeare play into a modern context, what new perspectives and interpretations could be arrived at if I were to read it from a queer perspective? How would that influence the identity and desires of the characters and the interpretation thereof?’ The study aimed to examine what would happen if the sexuality of the characters Richard and Hamlet were changed by transposing Hamlet and Richard III, into queer adaptations and how that would change the identity and desires of the title characters in the new adaptations. To do this, the study identified ‘unspoken or unconscious lesbian, gay, or queer presence’, or what will be referred to as queer cues, utilising the coding process of Constructivist-Grounded Theory in Hamlet and Richard III by William Shakespeare. Queer Theory has significantly impacted literary analysis. It has broadened the field’s focus beyond conventional binary conceptions of gender and sexuality. Using Queer Theory, one can study how gender and sexuality are disrupted and challenged in texts and how these categories are created and performed through language and narrative. Similarities exist between Queer Theory and Lesbian, Gay, and Queer Criticism (LGQC) as they both examine gender and sexuality. However, their approaches and points of focus are slightly different. While LGQC focuses on analysing particular cultural representations, Queer Theory deconstructs binary categories. One of the fundamental ideas of LGQC is the quest for textual evidence, or rather cues, in the literary interpretation of texts. In most cases, these cues are blatant homoerotic imagery and same-sex interactions, but sometimes these cues are subtle and create a homoerotic atmosphere in a heterosexual work. Several examples of subtle “unspoken or unconscious” cues exist, but this study predominantly focuses on homosocial bonding. In Tyson (2006), homosocial bonding is explained as portraying a strong emotional bond between characters of the same sex. The study aimed to examine which queer cues could be identified in the scripts through a queer reading and how that influenced the transposition of the scripts into new queer adaptations. The focus of this study was mainly on gay sensibility. A preliminary analysis made it clear that after examining the characters’ interactions with each other, there were subtle queer cues evident in Richard III and Hamlet. Other events and interactions were then Page | v analysed to see if they supported these cues. In my opinion, the results pointed to elements of homosocial bonding between the relevant characters, which I interpreted as indications that Richard and Hamlet were gay men. As mentioned above, the study applied the coding process of Constructivist-Grounded Theory. The first step is Initial Coding, followed by Focussed Coding, where categories are refined, and then finally, theory development. The Initial Coding process and the process of queer reading identified queer cues in the scripts of Richard III and Hamlet. For these queer cues to be identified, the study focussed on the concept of homosocial bonding and queer interpretation, seeing that the main focus of this study’s inquiry was the relationship between Richard and Tyrrel, and Hamlet and Horatio. The study found that the scripts indeed supported a queer interpretation of Richard III and Hamlet. During the Focused Coding process, other moments and events in the scripts were identified that can now be interpreted from a queer perspective. During the memo-writing process of Focused Coding, the characters of Tyrrel (in Richard III) and Horatio (in Hamlet) were examined to establish how their interactions supported a queer interpretation. The last part of the coding process (Memo-Writing) was transposing Hamlet and Richard III into queer adaptations, where Richard and Tyrrel and Hamlet and Horatio were placed in same-sex relationships. Nevertheless, when reading the queer adaptations, the study found that the queer interpretations of these plays could still not ‘present’ themselves in the scripts alone. A new question emerged: ‘How to present the queer cues in the new queer adaptations of Hamlet and Richard III?’ The study, therefore, included examing performances of Hamlet and Richard III, where it was found that the transposition to the stage was necessary to bring to life the ‘queer interpretations’ of the title characters. Clearly, the study needed to include actors’ performances to determine how the characters’ sexuality influenced their identities and desires. The actor’s interpretation and delivery of the lines, their gestures, and actions brought the queer interpretation of the scripts to the forefront. Page | vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, my deepest gratitude goes to my supervisor, Prof Anthea van Jaarsveld for your unique enthusiasm for the study, your guidance, patience, and commitment. Your friendly and honest comments and excellent knowledge of both theory and analytical techniques in adaptation and translation made the writing of the articles a joyous journey. I am genuinely grateful for your stepping in after losing my previous supervisors. I am immensely grateful to have had you as my supervisor! Second, I would like to acknowledge Prof. Nico Luwes, my mentor, colleague, and friend. Thank you for believing in me during my undergraduate studies, for your encouragement and inspiration as a performing artist, for giving me the opportunity and support to visit the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Canada, and for my studies at East 15 Acting School, England, and GITIS, Russia. I am so lucky to have you in my life as an artist and theatre practitioner; you make it so much richer! Third, I would like to acknowledge the financial support from the University of the Free State’s Faculty of the Humanities to complete my thesis. Fourth, the academics, administrative staff, and students of the Department of Drama and Theatre Arts at the UFS for showing their support and kindness during this journey. Fifth, Mr Johann Nel for providing thorough language editing and Mr Paquot for providing referencing assistance. Finally, and equally important, is the support from my family and friends. Your belief in me and words of encouragement kept me going forward. I want to make special mention of my father. He supported my career in the performing arts. Although he passed on, his words of encouragement and belief in me shall continue to impact me. 1 | P a g e Table of Contents DECLARATION ..................................................................................................................... iii ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................... vi Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................. 4 1. Background/Rationale ..................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Rational behind a queer interpretation 4 1.2 Queer Theoretical Background 6 1.2.1 Queer Theory and the term ‘queer’ .......................................................................................... 6 1.2.2 Homosocial bonding and the default reader ........................................................................... 8 1.3 Rational behind the choice for Richard III: identity and deformity 10 1.4 Rational behind the choice of Hamlet: struggle and identity 12 2. Research problem and objectives .................................................................................... 13 3. Research design and research methodology ................................................................... 14 4. Outline of study ................................................................................................................ 15 5. Value of the research ........................................................................................................ 16 6. List of references .............................................................................................................. 18 Chapter 2 (Article 1): Reimagining Desire and Identity in the Title Characters of Hamlet and Richard III: a Constructivist-Grounded Theory Approach. ............................................ 20 1. Prologue ............................................................................................................................ 21 1.1 Why Richard 21 1.1.1 Richard, as a political figure ..................................................................................................... 21 1.1.2 Richard’s deformity ................................................................................................................... 25 1.2 Why Hamlet 27 1.3 Why Queer 29 2. Research questions ........................................................................................................... 30 3. The Methodology ............................................................................................................. 31 3.1 Queer Theory and the Case of Queer Cues 33 3.2 Constructivist-Grounded Theory (CGT) as blueprint 36 3.3 Initial Coding and the process of queer reading 40 3.4 Initial Coding in Richard III and Hamlet 42 3.5 Focused Coding and Memo-Writing: the process of transposing. 54 3.6 Focus Coding and Memo-Writing in Richard III and Hamlet 56 4. Epilogue: Post-Focus Coding .......................................................................................... 76 5. List of references .............................................................................................................. 78 2 | P a g e Chapter 3 (Article 2): ‘Then since the Heauens haue shap’d my Body so’: Will the Political ‘Queer’ Richard Please Stand Up? ........................................................................................... 81 1. Prologue ............................................................................................................................ 82 2. Shakespeare’s Richard III ................................................................................................ 85 2.1 Shakespeare and the Tudor-history of Richard III 85 2.2 Shakespeare, The Lord Chamberlain’s Men and Sir Robert Cecil 86 2.3 The Queen’s Ninth Parliament and Richard III 88 2.4 Robert Cecil and Richard III 89 2.5 The evolution of staging Richard III 90 3. The South African Richard III ......................................................................................... 94 3.1 Political incidents in South Africa that influenced the concept 95 3.1.1 Use of Religion in political propaganda ................................................................................. 95 3.1.2 The chant ‘Kill the boer, kill the farmer’ and farm murders. .............................................. 96 3.1.3 ESKOM’s problem with supplying sufficient electricity for the country. ........................ 97 3.2 Strikes by transport and mine workers. 98 3.2.1 August 2012: The Marikana Massacre. ................................................................................... 98 3.2.2 September 2012: Violent strikes by transport workers ...................................................... 100 4. Concept ........................................................................................................................... 102 4.1 The modern adaptation of Richard III 102 5. Synopsis .......................................................................................................................... 104 5.1 Act 1, Scene 1 (outside in a street - midday) 104 5.2 Act 1, Scene 2 (outside in the street - early morning) 107 5.3 Act 1, Scene 3 (outside in street - late afternoon) 108 5.4 Act 1, Scene 4 (inside prison - the same day, evening) 111 5.5 Act 2, Scene 1 (outside in street - the same evening) 113 5.6 Act 2, Scene 2 (outside in street - the next day, early morning) 115 5.7 Act 3, Scene 1 (outside in street - Elizabeth and party on the bridge - Richard and party in the street - evening of the same day) 115 5.8 Act 3, Scene 2 (outside in street - the next day, early morning) 117 5.9 Act 3, Scene 3 (same as before - later in the day, midday) 118 5.10 Act 3, Scene 4 (meeting hall - same day, midday) 119 5.11 Act 4, Scene 1 (outside the prison - the next day, early morning) 120 5.12 Act 4, Scene 1.1 (the same day, midday) 120 5.13 Act 4, Scene 2 (outside - six months later, midday) 120 5.14 Act 4, Scene 3 (one area inside prison, another area the same as before - evening of the same day) 123 3 | P a g e 5.15 Act 4, Scene 4 (outside in the street - the next day, early morning) 124 5.16 Act 5, Scene 1 (outside somewhere - the same day, late afternoon/evening) 126 5.17 Act 5, Scene 2 (outside in the street - the next day, early morning) 128 6. Epilogue .......................................................................................................................... 129 7. List of references ............................................................................................................ 131 Chapter 4 (Article 3): ‘To tell our Storie’: Reflections on a Queer Adaptation of Hamlet in Twenty-first Century South Africa. ........................................................................................ 134 1. Prologue .......................................................................................................................... 135 2. The ‘dependent’ Hamlet ................................................................................................ 139 3. My ‘decolonised’ Hamlet ............................................................................................... 140 4. The Adaptation ............................................................................................................... 142 4.1 Act 1, scene 1 142 4.2 Act 1, scene2 142 4.3 Act 1, scene 4 144 4.4 Act 2 145 4.5 Act 3, scene 1 145 4.6 Act 3, scene 2 148 4.7 Act 3, scene 3 149 4.8 Act 4, scene 5 149 4.9 Act 4, scene 6 149 4.10 Act 5, scene 2 150 5. Epilogue .......................................................................................................................... 152 6. List of references ............................................................................................................ 154 Chapter 5: Denouement ......................................................................................................... 157 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 161 Addenda .................................................................................................................................. 170 Richard III script 171 Hamlet script 172 Published article ‘To tell our Storie’: Reflections on a Queer Adaptation of Hamlet in Twenty-first Century South Africa 173 4 | P a g e Chapter 1: Introduction 1. Background/Rationale During my Masters in Theatre Directing at East 15 Acting School in London, Tony Clark, lecturer, repeatedly posed the question: ‘If you were to direct a Shakespeare play now, why would you do it? What would the play say today?’ Aune (2006:41) maintains that, for a play to be relevant, it has to use current events to criticise, expose, or warn against tyrants and against the environment that allows their rise. Aune’s statement seems to refer to a political environment, but could this not be translated into an environment personal to the reader? This question motivated this study: ‘If I were to transpose a Shakespeare play into a modern context, what new perspectives and interpretations could be arrived at if I read it from a queer perspective? How would that influence the identity and desires of the characters and the interpretation thereof?’ Even though Shakespeare is a European playwright, his works speak to an audience beyond the European context when one looks at the number of performances and translations of Shakespeare’s plays around the globe. In my opinion, Shakespeare is not historically bound; his characters and narratives still speak to modern audiences. Laurence Wright1 (2004:76) argues that it is a strong possibility that “… [Shakespeare] will continue sporadically to be produced, re-processed, argued with and re-invented in all the art forms … as part of South African and African efforts at self-understanding …”. He adds that Shakespeare, “as a vehicle for exploring local and global concerns, will flourish as readily in South Africa2 as elsewhere”. The primary goal of this study is to investigate how transposing Hamlet and Richard III into a modern context using a queer interpretation, changing the sexuality of Richard and Hamlet, would change the identity and desires of the title characters. 1.1 Rational behind a queer interpretation On 26 June 2015, the US Supreme Court made a historic ruling regarding same-sex marriage (Roberts & Siddiqui 2015). The court ruled that attempts by conservative states to ban same-sex marriages were unconstitutional, and that same-sex marriages would now be legal throughout the 1 Prof Wright has been a scholar, researcher and teacher at Rhodes University for over 25 years; he is President of the Shakespeare Society of Southern Africa and Vice-President of the English Academy. 2 It is interesting to note that in 2011 EduCape, a company focusing on organising educational events for young adults, established the South African Shakespearean Schools Festival (SSF SA). Since then more than 60 schools in South Africa participated in Shakespeare performances on professional stages throughout the country. 5 | P a g e United States. Although most people, even President Obama, saw the decision as a positive step forward, not all Americans rejoiced. Mike Huckabee, the Republican presidential candidate, declared that the Supreme Court had tried to “unwrite the laws of nature and the laws of nature’s God” (Associated Press in Denver 2015). Interestingly, adverse reactions were not confined to the USA but were also voiced in South Africa. Vice President of the UCT SRC, Zizipho Pae, was expelled after she posted the following Facebook status update on 28 June in reaction to the US Supreme Court’s ruling: “We are institutionalising and normalising sin! Sin. May God have mercy on us.” (Petersen 2015). At a congress in Bloemfontein, the evangelist Angus Buchan commented on this issue (Bürger 2015), saying that same-sex marriage was a sin. He also revealed that he had phoned Zizipho Pae, told her he was proud, and assured her of his support. There were also several reports that this issue was being discussed in South African churches3. The queer debate also found its way to the performing arts. In the entertainment4 industry, there is a debate as to whether straight actors should still play LGBTQ+ roles. Even though many straight actors’ performances of LGBTQ+ characters deserve praise, there is an argument that only queer actors can bring authenticity to these roles. Interestingly though, there are opposing opinions on both sides of the fence. Some feel that straight actors should portray only straight characters, while LGBTQ actors should portray only LGBTQ+ characters. More and more LGBTQ+-themed plays are produced on Broadway and the West End5. The question might arise as to why include this debate here, as this might be seen as a separate study. The aim is to show that queer characters, and plays, are no longer restricted to the fringe in the world of theatre but are part and parcel of 3 Die NG Kerk en gays: ‘Tyd vir herbesin’ (Media 24 28 June 2015), Nelus Niemandt se pleidooi: ‘Gooi NG Kerk óóp vir gays’ (Media 24 1 July 2015), Spesiale verslag: Gay mense en die kerk (Media 24 20 July 2015), Gaywees nie keuse, sê verslag (Media 24 29 July 2015), ‘Ingebore en onveranderlik’. 4 https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2019/jan/14/gay-roles-actors-assassination-gianni-versace-bohemian-rhapsody https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/should-straight-actors-still-play-gay-characters-it-s-complicated-n1252603 https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/awards/story/2021-08-18/queer-actors-in-television-roles https://www.queerty.com/actor-jonathan-bailey-says-fantastic-straight-guys-play-gay-roles-theres-20201222 https://www.queerty.com/actor-andrew-scott-flips-script-says-gay-actors-play-straight-characters-20190305 https://www.queerty.com/wilson-cruz-calls-straight-actors-playing-lgbtq-roles-awards-bait-20200402 https://www.queerty.com/aaron-sorkin-says-casting-gay-actors-gay-roles-empty-gesture-20211220 https://www.queerty.com/rupert-everett-force-casting-gay-actors-gay-characters-dont-think-thats-right-20210307 https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jun/16/tom-hanks-says-couldnt-play-gay-role-today- philadelphia?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1655381049 5 https://www.londontheatre.co.uk/theatre-news/news/celebrate-lgbt-history-month-with-tickets-to-west-end-shows https://variety.com/2022/legit/reviews/cock-review-taron-edgerton-jonathan-bailey-west-end-1235207033/ https://www.attitude.co.uk/article/taron-egerton-says-theres-a-certain-amount-of-trepidation-playing-a-gay- character/21738/ https://www.attitude.co.uk/article/taron-egerton-says-theres-a-certain-amount-of-trepidation-playing-a-gay- character/21738/ https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2019/jan/14/gay-roles-actors-assassination-gianni-versace-bohemian-rhapsody https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/should-straight-actors-still-play-gay-characters-it-s-complicated-n1252603 https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/awards/story/2021-08-18/queer-actors-in-television-roles https://www.queerty.com/actor-jonathan-bailey-says-fantastic-straight-guys-play-gay-roles-theres-20201222 https://www.queerty.com/actor-andrew-scott-flips-script-says-gay-actors-play-straight-characters-20190305 https://www.queerty.com/wilson-cruz-calls-straight-actors-playing-lgbtq-roles-awards-bait-20200402 https://www.queerty.com/aaron-sorkin-says-casting-gay-actors-gay-roles-empty-gesture-20211220 https://www.queerty.com/rupert-everett-force-casting-gay-actors-gay-characters-dont-think-thats-right-20210307 https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jun/16/tom-hanks-says-couldnt-play-gay-role-today-philadelphia?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1655381049 https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jun/16/tom-hanks-says-couldnt-play-gay-role-today-philadelphia?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1655381049 https://www.londontheatre.co.uk/theatre-news/news/celebrate-lgbt-history-month-with-tickets-to-west-end-shows https://variety.com/2022/legit/reviews/cock-review-taron-edgerton-jonathan-bailey-west-end-1235207033/ https://www.attitude.co.uk/article/taron-egerton-says-theres-a-certain-amount-of-trepidation-playing-a-gay-character/21738/ https://www.attitude.co.uk/article/taron-egerton-says-theres-a-certain-amount-of-trepidation-playing-a-gay-character/21738/ https://www.attitude.co.uk/article/taron-egerton-says-theres-a-certain-amount-of-trepidation-playing-a-gay-character/21738/ https://www.attitude.co.uk/article/taron-egerton-says-theres-a-certain-amount-of-trepidation-playing-a-gay-character/21738/ 6 | P a g e mainstream theatres. Since the early 1980s, a vast amount of research6 has shown a keen interest in Shakespeare’s works from a queer perspective, not to mention academic courses and presentations. Menon (2011:12) claims that Shakespeare is a queer theorist, not because the word ‘queer’ appears in any title but because Queer Theory may be shown to inhabit his work. On the other hand, Stockton (2012:226) states in his review of Shakesqueer: A Queer Companion to the Complete Works of Shakespeare that the problem with Menon’s claim “…is its concomitant implication that any and all resistance to [Queer Theory] necessarily amounts to the protection of a heteronormative7 view of history …”. 1.2 Queer Theoretical Background 1.2.1 Queer Theory and the term ‘queer’ Queer Theory emerged as a reaction to the limitations of traditional feminist and gay/lesbian studies, which were criticised for promoting binary conceptions of gender and sexuality. This theory suggests that gender and sexuality are socially constructed and flexible, not binary categories. Queer Theory argues that power dynamics and cultural practices constantly reshape and redefine gender and sexuality. Judith Butler’s work in 1990 helped to establish this perspective. The idea of performativity is crucial to Queer Theory. Gender and sexuality are formed through repeated acts or ‘performances’, reinforced by cultural practices and social conventions, per Judith Butler’s (1990) theory. Instead of being fundamental or natural characteristics, gender and sexuality are deconstructed. Therefore, gender and sexuality are not innate characteristics but created through our actions and interactions with others. According to Halberstam (2011), this viewpoint has caused literary analysis to be rethought, which traditionally concentrated on how gender and sexuality are portrayed rather than how these categories are enacted and constructed through language and story. 6 Gilbert, S. 2018. Shakesqueer in love: Exploring the Bard’s queer themes. The Conversation. [online] Stanivukovic, G. (Ed.). 2017. Queer Shakespeare: Desire and Sexuality. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Menon, M. (Ed.). 2011. Shakesqueer: A Queer Companion to the Complete Works of Shakespeare. London: Duke University Press. Guy-Bray, S. 2020. Shakespeare and Queer Representation, 1st ed. London: Routledge. 7 ‘Heteronormative’ refers to a person’s sexuality where the ‘norm’ is straight, and assumption is that everyone is by default ‘naturally’ straight, and homosexuality, or any other form of sexuality, is inferior. https://eige.europa.eu/thesaurus/terms/1237 https://theconversation.com/shakesqueer-in-love-exploring-the-bards-queer-themes-98220 https://eige.europa.eu/thesaurus/terms/1237 7 | P a g e Queer Theory has significantly impacted literary analysis because it has broadened the field’s focus beyond conventional binary conceptions of gender and sexuality. The study of how gender and sexuality are disrupted and challenged in texts and how these categories are created and performed through language and narrative are made possible using Queer Theory. Scholars such as Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick (2016) have used Queer Theory to analyse literature. Her writing examines the idea of homosocial desire, which disregards women and describes emotional relationships between men that are not always homoerotic. According to Sedgwick (2016), societal standards affect this desire and are evident in cultural expressions like literature, art, and film. She contends that prejudice towards women and LGBTQ+ people stems from male homosocial bonding’s dread of homosexuality. Sedgwick (2016) illustrates how power dynamics, gender, and sexuality impact interpersonal relationships through her investigation of male homosocial desire. The notion that homosexuality is a contemporary invention is discussed in Bray’s work, Homosexuality in Renaissance England (1995). He emphasised that homosexuality did not refer to a person’s broader identity per se but rather the sexual act between people of the same sex, but that “homosexual identity” emerged in the early 18th century. He further argues that same-sex attraction existed but was not tolerated (condemned as sodomy and tribadism) in early modern England8. Bray’s work on Queer Theory aimed to disprove the notion that heterosexuality is the only healthy and appropriate sexual orientation. His contributions allowed other experts in Queer Theory to explore further the social, cultural, and historical background of sexuality and challenge preconceived notions about gender and sexuality (Halperin 2002). Bray’s theories have influenced historians and literary academics who have used Queer Theory to examine literature through the lens of gender and sexuality. By exploring how these themes reflect cultural constructions of gender and sexuality, Queer Theory in literature challenges traditional interpretations that ignore or minimise queer elements in literary texts (Holland 2000). Queer Theory and Lesbian, Gay, and Queer Criticism (LGQC) share similarities as interdisciplinary fields examining gender and sexuality. However, LGQC focuses more on analysing specific cultural representations, while Queer Theory deconstructs binary categories. Queer Theory challenges traditional conceptions of gender and sexuality, while LGQC focuses on how they are represented in cultural texts (Garber 1992, Sinfield 1994, Jagose 2016). 8 See also: Dollimore, J. 2021. Desire: A Memoir and Smith, B.R., 1995. Homosexual Desire in Shakespeare's England: A Cultural Poetics 8 | P a g e LGQC is defined and distinguished in various ways within the canon of literary criticism sources. The analysis and comprehension of sexual orientation is the distinguishing aspect of lesbian/gay criticism, according to Barry (2002:135). In lesbian and gay criticism, the genders are separated. The discussion of lesbian feminism is then used by Barry (ibid) to further distinguish between lesbian and gay critique; however, in this case, the emphasis is from a gender perspective. The term ‘queer’ (Barry 2002:138) subsequently evolves into an inclusive one that is no longer ‘woman- centred’ (as Barry explains) but rather “...sees an identity of political and social interest with gay men”. Dobie (2012) asserts that gay and lesbian movements were previously categorised as male and female studies and that the term Queer Theory reflects an evolving alliance between gay men and lesbians. According to Dobie, ‘queer’ is more inclusive than ‘gay and lesbian’ and can encompass a broader range of identities and experiences. Tyson (2006) differentiates between lesbian, gay, and queer criticism. According to Tyson, lesbian criticism concerns personal identity and politics, much like feminist criticism (322). On the other hand, gay criticism focuses more on gay sensibility or how being gay influences one’s perception of the world, oneself, and others (330). Tyson (336) suggests that ‘queer’ encompasses various meanings in literary studies. Using it as an inclusive term in literary criticism means interpreting a text from a ‘non-straight perspective’. Plummer (2005:359) states the following: “‘Queer’, for me, is the postmodernisation of sexual and gender studies”. For him, the conventional categories of sexuality and gender are deconstructed. For this study, I will use the word ‘queer’; even though the focus will be on male characters, it is understood that the term is inclusive. 1.2.2 Homosocial bonding and the default reader Kubowitz (2012:201) argues that being heterosexual has advantages in identifying with cultural narratives. This is because cultural narratives often have an implied reader9 who is assumed to be heterosexual. Kubowitz (ibid) proposes to call this a default reader instead of an implied reader. He assumes that one of the default settings for this reader is heterosexuality, which can make it difficult for non-heterosexual individuals to identify with cultural narratives. Tyson (2006:339) infers that in an ‘accepted’ heterosexual text, subtle textual cues can create a ‘homoerotic atmosphere’ or give way to a queer interpretation. A single cue cannot be used as evidence for such an ‘atmosphere’; however, when there is a prevalence of cues that create a 9 Discussed further in Chapter 2 (Article 1). 9 | P a g e ‘homoerotic atmosphere’, especially when combined with biographical or other textual evidence, a queer interpretation of a heterosexual text can be supported. There are several examples of different types of subtle ‘unspoken or unconscious’ cues, in this study referred to as queer cues10, where there is predominantly a focus on homosocial bonding. Tyson (2006:339-340) explains homosocial bonding as portraying a strong emotional bond between characters of the same sex. This creates “ … a homosocial atmosphere that may be subtly or overtly homoerotic11”. Irrespective of the homoerotic elements present, the portrayal of homosocial bonding highlights the significant role that emotional ties between individuals of the same gender play in shaping human identity and fostering a sense of community. The quest for textual evidence, or cues, in literary interpretation, is integral to the LGQC perspective. Even though homoerotic imagery and same-sex interactions are the most overt, subtle textual cues can create a homoerotic atmosphere in a heterosexual work (Tyson 2006). Bray’s influence on literary studies is discussed relative to the use of Queer Theory to examine literature from the perspectives of gender and sexuality. Kubowitz’s model of queer reading strategies outlines techniques readers can use to find queer meanings in apparently straight texts (2012:204). Kubowitz (ibid) argues that such a model is necessary for the context of Queer Theory, as it is interdisciplinary and only partially practical as a tool for literary interpretation. He believes that although Queer Theory offers important ideas for critical reading, it does not adequately explain how queer fictional worlds are created, including those written and read. Kubowitz (ibid) suggests that his model can help answer questions about contradictory interpretations and the potential reasons behind different reading strategies. Kubowitz (2012:205) argues that readers try to make literary texts meaningful to themselves, and his model of queer reading is based on this idea. He notes that readers do not always approach a book with fundamental questions like: “What is the text saying?”, “What does the text mean?” or “What is the author saying?”. Instead, readers are more likely to ask questions such as “What does the text tell me, or do to me?”, “What can I do with the text?”. A question closely associated with his default reader model is: “Does the text address me at all?”. 10 The concept of queer cues is defined later in the chapter. 11 Other works on the topic: Dollimore, J. 2021. Desire: A Memoir & Smith, B.R., 1995. Homosexual Desire in Shakespeare's England: A Cultural Poetics. 10 | P a g e As a gay man, I found Kubowitz’s default reader model very true to my own reading of plays, the default being my homosexuality. In most cases, I sometimes identify with the characters and situations, albeit not in the original heterosexual context, but from a gay perspective. One such play is Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Hamlet reflects, ‘To be, or not to be, that is the Question’12, which in most productions, as Crystal (2013:119) argues, is often interpreted as being about suicide, but for me, it further begs the question of own acceptance of one’s sexuality. The study examines which queer cues, evidence of homosocial bonding, could be identified in the scripts through a queer reading and how that will influence the transposition of the scripts into new queer adaptations. Homosocial bonding and queer interpretation form the basis of this study’s inquiry into the relationship between Richard and Tyrrel and Hamlet and Horatio. 1.3 Rational behind the choice for Richard III: identity and deformity In 2011 I saw a Richard III production at the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Stratford, Ontario, Canada. I was fascinated by Richard’s villainy but, more importantly, in my opinion, the lack of motivation. I have always had an interest in the psychology of the criminal mind. One aspect, in particular, fascinates me: Why do they do the things they do? I find it difficult to answer this question when it comes to Richard. In my opinion, Richard is much more complicated than Shakespeare’s other villains. He outright states in his opening soliloquy: And therefore, since I cannot proue a Louer, 3013 To entertaine these faire well spoken dayes, I am determined to proue a Villaine, And hate the idle pleasures of these dayes. Why does Richard choose to be a villain? Depending on how you interpret his opening monologue, he may be motivated by greed and self-loathing; he feels unloved because of his physical deformity. For me, Richard has no reason to be a villain based on hatred, revenge, or social disadvantage; he simply decides to be one, an emotionally personalised choice. Even in Henry VI, Part 3, while stabbing King Henry VI, Richard, very similar to his opening soliloquy in Richard III, states that he will become a villain. 12 Act 3, scene 1, line 1710. Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Hamlet. DjVu Editions E-books, Global Language Resources, Inc, 2001. http://triggs.djvu.org/djvu-editions.com/SHAKESPEARE/HAMLET/Download.pdf. 13 William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Richard the Third: with the Landing of Earle Richmond, and the Battell at Bosworth Field. DjVu Editions E-books, Global Language Resources, Inc, 2001. url: http://triggs.djvu.org/djvu- editions.com/SHAKESPEARE/RICH3/rich3.pdf http://triggs.djvu.org/djvu-editions.com/SHAKESPEARE/HAMLET/Download.pdf http://triggs.djvu.org/djvu-editions.com/SHAKESPEARE/RICH3/rich3.pdf http://triggs.djvu.org/djvu-editions.com/SHAKESPEARE/RICH3/rich3.pdf 11 | P a g e At East 15, one of the questions often asked in discussions of Richard III was: ‘How would one approach his deformity?’ In his opening soliloquy, Richard declares: … I, that am curtail’d of this faire Proportion, 20 Cheated of Feature by dissembling Nature, Deform’d, vn-finish’d, sent before my time Into this breathing World, scarse halfe made vp, And that so lamely and vnfashionable, That dogges barke at me, as I halt by them. For me, there is a link between his villainy to his deformity. From a queer reading, I interpret his deformity as his sexuality and not only physical. Because he cannot be a lover in a same-sex relationship14, it influences his choice to be a villain. Other instances supported my queer reading. The character of Richard in Richard III has been interpreted in various ways, with different approaches to his physical deformity. In the 2011 production of the play at the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Canada, the title character was played by an actress, Seana McKenna. She introduced subtle femininity to the role, suggesting that his handicap was his physical deformity and supposed deficiency as a man. This interpretation is linked to the early modern Galenic one-sex model (which viewed women as deficient men) and Richard’s deformity as making him more feminine. His mother’s insults in Act 1, scene 3 reinforce this idea. The reviewer of the production, Laura Estill (2012:147), argues that the actress’ portrayal of Richard emphasised his unmanliness. This production initiated this study and the search for queer cues in Shakespeare’s work. The search for queer cues was further influenced by Sir Ian McKellen’s screen adaptation of Richard III, based on Richard Eyre’s stage production for the Royal National Theatre. Of this adaptation, Friedman (2009:568) comments that the defeat by Richmond, whose heterosexuality is stressed in the film, over Richard “… represents the triumph of married sexuality over depraved sexual defiance”. Additionally, the character Tyrrel appears in more scenes than in the original script, and after his first appearance, he is always at Richard’s side. There are hints of homosocial bonding between Richard and Tyrrel, which may be more noticeable because McKellen is openly gay. 14 Homosexuality during the English Renaissance was generally not accepted or tolerated, as it was seen as a sin and a deviation from the natural order of sexuality. This view was strongly influenced by the Christian Church's teachings, which condemned homosexuality as immoral and sinful (Saslow 2003). Despite this legal and societal hostility toward homosexuality, works of English Renaissance literature and art occasionally depict homoeroticism and same-sex desire, especially those by authors like William Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe (Dollimore 1991). These representations, nevertheless, were frequently cryptic and unclear, and society at the period did not publicly praise or support them. 12 | P a g e Richard’s overtly feminine behaviour in the Stratford production and Ian McKellen’s adaptation’s subtly suggestive portrayal of his sexuality led to the queer interpretation of the play. This study investigates how Richard’s identity and desire may be affected by the idea that he was a “less perfect” man at birth. It also examines how Richard’s self-consciousness regarding his deformity and sexuality, as well as any potential struggles with his sexuality, may have influenced his villainy and desire for the throne. Notably, Richard is responsible for the deaths of twelve characters, but not one by his own hand. This bolsters the notion of a ‘less perfect’ man. 1.4 Rational behind the choice of Hamlet: struggle and identity This idea of characters ‘struggling’ is a recurring theme in Shakespeare’s plays. I believe the character that best displays this never-ending ‘struggle’ is Hamlet. Bickley & Stevens (2013:99) claim that Hamlet has never fallen out of favour with audiences, critics and scholars, even with all the variations performed over the centuries15. Frank Kermode (1985:62, cited in Bickley & Stevens 2013:99) attributes this to the play’s ‘perpetual modernity’, which allows the play to be ‘remade in the image of each new generation’. Hamlet is a play that sparks debate about its meaning in artistic and scholarly circles. It is seen as a “political drama and a play about the journey of an individual self’ by Bate (2008a:4). At the same time, Crystal (2013:3) describes it as a play about “murder, grief, guilt, possible suicide, incest, fratricide, regicide”. Freud (1966:265–266, cited in Gil Harris 2012:84) compared the characters of Oedipus and Hamlet and considered “falling in love with the mother and jealousy of the father … as a universal event of early childhood”. Ernest Jones used this theory in his psychoanalytical literary critique of Hamlet and Oedipus. Laurence Olivier’s portrayal of Hamlet in his 1947 adaptation was based on the Freudian theme of Hamlet’s repressed Oedipal desire for his mother, Gertrude. The theme of Hamlet’s madness and melancholy is often discussed with different interpretations. Crystal (2013:117–118) suggests three possible answers: “Yes, no, and he starts sane and ends up mad”. Although the consensus is that Hamlet is mad, Crystal (ibid) also notes that he appears lucid in some instances. He further mentions that Horatio warns Hamlet that the ghost might drive him into madness, and the ghost warns Hamlet not to let his mind be tainted. Hamlet also confesses to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern that he is not actually mad. 15 Interesting to note the 2022 Pulitzer Prize-winning new play on Broadway by playwright James Ijames and director Saheem Ali. A queer reinvention of Hamlet; Juicy who is familiar with Hamlet’s difficult situation, is a queer Southern college kid grappling with questions of identity. Juicy is a Black man searching for his own happiness and liberation when his father’s ghost appears and demands that he must avenge his murder. A comical play examining love and loss, pain and joy. 13 | P a g e Hamlet’s ‘To be, or not to be’ soliloquy is a famous and debated speech. As noted before, Crystal (2013:119) argues that in most productions, it is often interpreted as being about suicide. In a recent production with Benedict Cumberbatch, the director emphasised Hamlet’s desire to commit suicide by having him come on stage with a noose around his neck for this soliloquy. In contrast, others claim it is about whether or not to kill Claudius. However, Crystal (ibid) suggests that the speech could be about ‘life’ and ‘death’ or ‘being’ and ‘not being’. The relationship between Horatio and Hamlet in Shakespeare’s play is significant and could support a queer interpretation. Horatio is present in crucial moments of the play and interacts mainly with Hamlet. He is not part of the court but is well-versed in Danish politics. Horatio’s presence at Elsinore is questioned, and his explanation that he came for old King Hamlet’s funeral is questioned by Hamlet. Horatio’s knowledge of the political situation in Denmark could imply a close relationship between Horatio and Hamlet; more than just friends. How does all the above influence the interpretation of the play and Hamlet and Horatio’s, if they were in a same-sex relationship (Heydenrych 2017:48). How will this affect the interpretation of the ‘To be, or not to be’ speech exploring the aspect of ‘being or not being’? How would it affect Hamlet’s rejection of Ophelia and her consequent madness? Could Hamlet’s sexuality be seen as motivation for Claudius’s immediate decision to deport Hamlet, not only for being guilty of killing Polonius, but also for being a ‘disgrace’ to the family and kingdom? Could a possible sexual relationship be why Horatio is so eager to share the poisoned wine in the final scene and die with Hamlet? The image of Hamlet dying in Horatio’s arms, and Horatio’s intent on drinking the poison, may be considered reminiscent of the tomb scene in Romeo and Juliet, and thus a clear cue of homosocial bonding. 2. Research problem and objectives The primary goal of this study is to examine what happens if Hamlet and Richard III are staged from a modern queer perspective, with the assumption that the title characters themselves are gay. How would that change the identity and desires of the title characters in the new adaptations? The following questions and statements are used to formulate the research questions. Tyson (2006:341) offers several questions to summarise lesbian, gay or queer approaches to literature. Relevant to this study were: How might the works of heterosexual writers be reread to reveal an unspoken or unconscious lesbian, gay, or queer presence? That is, does the work have an unconscious lesbian, gay, or queer desire or conflict that it submerges (or that heterosexual readers have submerged)? 14 | P a g e According to Barry (2002:143), lesbian/gay (‘queer’ for the purpose of this study) critics do the following: Identify lesbian/gay episodes in mainstream work and discuss them as such (for example, the relationship between Jane and Helen in Jane Eyre), rather than reading same-sex pairings in non- specific ways, for instance, as symbolising two aspects of the same character (Zimmerman). The study aims to identify queer cues, utilising the coding process of Constructivist-Grounded Theory16 (CGT), as a blueprint, in Hamlet and Richard III by William Shakespeare. Critical questions are: • How does a queer interpretation of Richard III and Hamlet change the identity and desire of the title characters? • What elements in Richard III and Hamlet can be identified as queer cues, and do the characters’ interactions with each other support these cues? • What is the effect of these queer cues on the identity and desire of the title characters in the queer adaptations of Richard III and Hamlet? Research objectives are: • the identification of queer cues in the scripts of Richard III and Hamlet, using the Initial Coding process of data analysis in a CGT practice; • the identification of other moments in the play, after identifying queer cues in the scripts, that can now be interpreted from a queer perspective using the Focused Coding data analysis process; and • the transposition of Richard III and Hamlet into queer adaptions as part of the Memo-Writing process in a CGT practice after Focused Coding. 3. Research design and research methodology The study will involve a literature study exploring the qualitative CGT coding process. The study will then employ these processes as a blueprint to analyse queer cues in Richard III and Hamlet. 16 Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT) is a research approach that emphasises developing new theories by deducing them from collected data rather than from pre-existing theoretical frameworks. Further discussed in Chapter 2 (Article 1). 15 | P a g e The structure of the research design will comprise three phases: • a study of the qualitative CGT coding process; • an analysis of Hamlet and Richard III at the hand of the identified coding processes; • incorporating the information obtained in the first two phases in the transposition of Hamlet and Richard III to a South African context, including reflections on the changes made during the transposing process. 4. Outline of study This study consists of three related research articles. • Chapter 1, the current chapter, introduces the study. This chapter explains a) the research proposal and includes the background and reasons for the study based, b) the preliminary literature study, c) the research aims and demarcation thereof, and d) the research questions. The chapter will also discuss the research methodology and design and indicate the possible value of the research. It is important to note that even though this study will be read as a thesis, each following chapter should be considered and read as separate articles. As a result, the reader will find several instances where repetition will occur. I intend to submit these articles for publication and am aware that the length of each article will necessitate a rework, but for the sake of the thesis, I opted for more complete articles. • Chapter 2, Article 1 (Reimagining Desire and Identity in the Title Characters of Hamlet and Richard III: a Constructivist-Grounded Theory approach) discusses the CGT processes as a blueprint. After the discussion, the coding processes are applied to the scripts of Hamlet and Richard III, commenting on the queer cues identified and the queer interpretations made to the adaptations of these scripts. • Chapter 3, Article 2 (‘Then since the Heauens haue shap’d my Body so’: Will the Political ‘Queer’ Richard Please Stand Up?) explores and comments on the production of the queer adaptation of Richard III. The article indicates changes to the script and discusses the actors’ performances in certain scenes to bring forth the queer adaptation with photographic images of the production. • Chapter 4, Article 3 (‘To tell our Storie’: Reflections on a Queer Adaptation of Hamlet in Twenty-first Century South Africa) explores and comments on the production of the queer adaptation of Hamlet. The article indicates changes made to the script and discusses the actors’ performances in certain scenes to bring forth the queer adaptation with photographic images of the production. In 2016 the paper was presented at a national colloquium on decolonising 16 | P a g e Shakespeare17. The article was published in the South African Shakespeare Journal in 2017. More images have been included in this thesis than in the published article, which is attached as an addendum. • Chapter 5, the conclusion, aims to determine whether a foundation can be established for future adaptations of Shakespeare. • Addenda  Scripts of the adaptations  Published article ‘To tell our Storie’: Reflections on a Queer Adaptation of Hamlet in Twenty-first Century South Africa 5. Value of the research The study aims to explore the adaptation of a Shakespeare play, using literary theory as a basis; in this case, Queer Theory and CGT. While adapting the specified Shakespeare plays, using a selected literary theory, the study aims to establish a possible academic foundation for future adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays. The study also explores changes that might be made in order to set a Shakespearean play within a modern South African context. Academics, theatre practitioners, dramatists, and others may benefit from this example of the possible use of a literary theory to adapt a Shakespeare play. Analysing queer cues in the work of Shakespeare, particularly the relationship between Richard and Tyrrel and Hamlet and Horatio, could make a valuable contribution to Queer Theory in several ways. It could expand the scope of queer literary analysis by applying a queer lens to a canonical work. This demonstrates that queer readings can be applied to diverse texts, enriching the field of queer literature analysis. The study could increase the visibility and representation of queer characters and narratives by highlighting potential queer subtexts in classic literature. This challenges the notion that queer representation is a recent phenomenon and emphasises queer representation’s historical presence; not to say that this has not been done before, but this study could add to the already existing work. Most importantly, the study disrupts heteronormative assumptions by interpreting the Richard-Tyrrel and Hamlet-Horatio relationships as potentially queer. Doing so, questions the dominant narrative that assumes all close male friendships are purely platonic. The study can further stimulate dialogue and debate within Queer Theory and literary criticism by presenting an alternative interpretation and 17 Colloquium on “Decolonising Shakespeare?” Contestations and re-imaginings for a post-liberation South Africa which formed part of KZN Shakespeare Festival hosted by the Drama and Performance Studies Programme, College of Humanities, University of KwaZulu-Natal. This colloquium coincided with the global celebrations of the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death. 17 | P a g e providing a platform for discussions on queer representation in classical literature, the significance of subtext, and the implications of ‘queering’ historical texts. 18 | P a g e 6. List of references Associated Press in Denver. 2015. Huckabee says supreme court ‘unwrote laws of nature’ on same- sex marriage. The Guardian. [online]. 27 June. < http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/27/mike-huckabee-supreme-court-gay-marriage> Downloaded 13 August 2015 Aune, M.G. 2006. The Uses of Richard III: from Robert Cecil to Richard Nixon. Shakespeare Bulletin: 24(3):23–47, [online]. Downloaded 14 August 2013 Barry, P. 2002. Beginning theory: an introduction to literary and cultural theory 2nd ed. London: Manchester University Press. Bate, J. 2008a, Introduction. In Hamlet: RSC edition, edited by Bate, J. & Rasmussen, E. Hampshire: Macmillan Publishers Ltd. Bickley, P. & Stevens, J. 2013. Essential Shakespeare: the Arden guide to text and interpretation. London: Bloomsbury. Bürger, V. 2015. Gay-huwelike is sonde, sê Angus Buchan. Volksblad. [online]. 06 Augustus. < http://www.netwerk24.com/nuus/2015-08-06-gay-huwelike-is-sonde-s-angus-buchan> Downloaded 13 August 2015 Crystal, B. 2013. Springboard Shakespeare: Hamlet. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. Dobie, A.B. 2012. Theory into Practice: An Introduction to Literary Criticism, 3rd ed. Boston: Wadsworth. Estill, L. 2012. The 2011 Stratford Festival: Richard III and Shakespeare’s Will. The Upstart Crow: A Shakespeare Journal XXXI:147–154. Friedman, M.D. 2009. Horror, Homosexuality, and Homiciphilia in McKellen’s Richard III and Jarman’s Edward II. Shakespeare Bulletin 27(4):568–588. Gil Harris, J. 2012. Shakespeare and literary theory. New York: Oxford University Press. Heydenrych, T. 2017. ‘To tell our Storie’: Reflections on a Queer Adaptation of Hamlet in Twenty- first Century South Africa. Shakespeare in Southern Africa 30:43–55. Kubowitz, H. 2012. The Default Reader and a Model of Queer Reading and Writing Strategies Or: Obituary for the Implied reader. Style 46(2):201–228. [online JSTOR]. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/27/mike-huckabee-supreme-court-gay-marriage http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/shakespeare_bulletin/v024/24.3aune01.html http://www.netwerk24.com/nuus/2015-08-06-gay-huwelike-is-sonde-s-angus-buchan http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.5325/style.46.2.201.pdf 19 | P a g e Mabillard, A. 2000. Top Shakespeare Villains. Shakespeare Online. [online]. 20 August. downloaded 24 July 2013 Menon, M. (Ed.). 2011. Shakesqueer: A Queer Companion to the Complete Works of Shakespeare. London: Duke University Press. Petersen, C. 2015. UCT homophobe gets booted out. Cape a Times. [online]. 23 July. < http://www.iol.co.za/capetimes/uct-homophobe-gets-booted-out-1.1889325#.VcxkJPmqq2U> Downloaded 13 August 2015 Plummer, K. 2005. Critical Humanism and Queer Theory: Living with the tensions. In Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds). The SAGE Handbook of qualitative research, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. Roberts, D. & Siddiqui, S. 2015. Gay marriage declared legal across the US in historic supreme court ruling. The Guardian. [online]. 26 June. < http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/26/gay-marriage-legal-supreme-court> Downloaded 13 August 2015 Stockton, W. 2012. Shakespeare and Queer Theory. Shakespeare Quarterly. 63(2):224–235, (online PROJECT MUSE). Tyson, L. 2006. Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. Wright, L. 2004. Shakespeare in South Africa: Alpha and ‘Omega’. Postcolonial Studies 7(1):63–81, (online Taylor & Francis). http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/shakespearevillains.html%3e http://www.iol.co.za/capetimes/uct-homophobe-gets-booted-out-1.1889325#.VcxkJPmqq2U http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/26/gay-marriage-legal-supreme-court 20 | P a g e Chapter 2 (Article 1): Reimagining Desire and Identity in the Title Characters of Hamlet and Richard III: a Constructivist-Grounded Theory Approach. 21 | P a g e Chapter 2 (Article 1): Reimagining Desire and Identity in the Title Characters of Hamlet and Richard III: a Constructivist-Grounded Theory Approach. 1. Prologue During my Masters in Theatre Directing at East 15 Acting School in London, Tony Clark, lecturer, repeatedly posed the question: ‘If you were to direct a Shakespeare play now, why would you do it? What would the play say today?’ These questions motivated this study: ‘If I were to transpose a Shakespeare play into a modern context, what new perspectives and interpretations could be arrived at if I were to read it from a queer perspective? How would such a perspective influence the identity and desires of the characters?’ 1.1 Why Richard Part of my Masters in Theatre Directing concentrated on several Shakespeare plays. One was Richard III, where the play’s relevance to today and Richard’s deformity were discussed. What follows is a discussion of a possible reason why Shakespeare wrote Richard III and the subsequent portrayals of the character. 1.1.1 Richard, as a political figure Hughes (2013:7 of 14) states that, by comparing the date of the play’s first registration, 20 October 1597, and the events that happened around that time, it is impossible to deny that Richard’s traits and deformities emphasised by Shakespeare were very similar to those of Sir Robert Cecil. The latter was appointed as State Secretary the year before. Several verse libels and letters written about Cecil expose connections between him and the character of Richard III. Both Richard and Robert Cecil are described as being deformed. According to Aune (2006:26), Cecil complained in a letter, which he knew the Queen would read, that she referred to him as her ‘little elf’ or ‘pigmy’. Sir Robert Naunton, his best friend, even described him as ‘a little, crooked person’, and King James I referred to him as ‘little beagle’. According to Hotine (1991:480), there most certainly is a connection between Cecil’s ambitions and his regular promotions with the writing of Richard III and its subsequent performances. One might even consider it the reason for Shakespeare’s writing of the play. According to Aune (2006:27), Cecil’s ambition was evident from the beginning. The Queen first took notice of Robert Cecil as a writer of propaganda that supported her decision to execute Mary Queen of Scots in 1586. Cecil benefited from his father’s influence when he was appointed Elizabeth’s Secretary of State ten years 22 | P a g e later. He had a significant influence until he died in 1612, facilitating James’s ascension through a covert correspondence before Elizabeth died, continuing as Secretary of State, rising to the position of Treasurer, and receiving numerous titles. After his death, people openly expressed the hatred they felt towards him. In 1658, Francis Osborne, eighteen at that time, wrote a verse about Robert Cecil (Hotine 1991:480): Here lyes throwne, for the wormes to eate, Little bossive Robin, that was so great, Not Robin good-fellow, Nor Robin Hood, But Robin th’encloser of Hatfield wood, Who seem’d as sent from ugly fate, To spoyle the prince and rob the state. Also, after Cecil’s death, several quartos were published until 1634 and, according to Aune (2006:31), there is no evidence of any similar association with any political figure other than Cecil. Richard III remained popular throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; however, Richard’s character became less particular, as with Cecil, and more general. Aune (2006:32) claims that it did not seem that actors, from David Garrick to Kean, used Shakespeare to attack specific figures. Knowles (1984:1 of 8) adds that, during the eighteenth century, actors like Garrick, Edmund Kean, Kemble, Booth and others preferred to perform Colley Cibber’s adaptation. Cibber shortened the play and reduced the number of characters. Loehlin (1993:80) concludes that the adaptation made the character of Richard more central and that Richard III was only ‘… a favourite star vehicle for actors’. The character visually stayed the same but only became a figure of the past (Aune 2006:32). Although continental influences had started to have an impact, by the early twentieth century, Anglo-American productions of Richard III still primarily reflected nineteenth-century actor- centred, historically oriented practices. This was the case in Britain, where Richard III was still played as a type of “museum Shakespeare,” even as Harley Granville-Barker and others infused modernist features into some Shakespeare stagings, even though Shakespeare performances became more political in Europe. Dennis Kennedy (2004:29, cited in Aune 2006:32), writes: “British Shakespeare generally in this period, but particularly in Stratford and London, backed away from connecting the national dramatist to the conditions of the contemporary world”, a practice that continued until the 1930s. It seems it was easier to understand the play as a history lesson rather 23 | P a g e than a comment on contemporary social or political conditions (Aune 2006:32). This, however, changed in the 1920s in Germany. In Germany, Richard III was staged in one of the most significant continental productions, under the direction of Leopold Jessner, at the National Theatre of Berlin in the fall of 1920. According to Jessner, plays should be current rather than historical (Grange 1987:92, Höfele 1992: 141-43, Hortmann 1900: 57-58, cited in Aune 2006:32). He already had a reputation for staging shows that were critical of German militarism. His stage interpretation was non-realistic and metaphorical, which reflected this belief. Richard wore a gigantic crown and a large red cloak. Most of the action following Richard’s coronation occurred on a red stairway leading up to the throne. Kortner’s performance of the character Richard did not refer to a specific individual or seek situations from the distant past. Instead, the production itself highlighted the harm done by the ambition of two men who attempted to overthrow the German government: Wolfgang Kapp, who was executed, and Karl Liebknecht, leaders of the Kapp-Littwitz Putsch in 1920 and the Spartakist Rising in 1919, respectively (Grange 1987:92, cited in Aune 2006:32). In 1937, Jurgen Fehling followed by giving Richard III a contemporary setting with clear commentary on the repressive political and social circumstances in Germany at the time (Aune 2006:33). Performances of Richard III in Britain in the 1900s started reflecting the rise of fascism without making explicit connections. In 1939 John Laurie’s performance of Richard at Stratford-upon-Avon reminded audiences of Hitler and Mussolini. Donald Wolfit portrayed Richard in 1942, and in his autobiography, it became clear that he recognised similarities between Richard and Hitler; he, however, chose not to incorporate them into his performance. In an interview in the mid-1960s, Laurence Olivier, who portrayed Richard in 1944, remembered: “One had Hitler over the way, one was playing it definitely as a paranoiac, so there was a core of something to which the audience would immediately respond”. Both Olivier and Wolfit saw allusions to Hitler to connect with their audience. However, regardless of their ideas about Richard and the play, the focus remained on them as performers (Aune 2006:34–35). Of his 1947 production, Swedish director Alf Sjöberg said: “ [Richard] was not hard to identify while Europe was still living in the rubble of the world war, and we continually watched great ideological con-men rise up and try to seize power” (Leiter 1986:601, cited in Aune 2006:36). Sjöberg seems to imply that in addition to the play being considered topical, Richard’s persona and ascent to power acted as a cautionary tale, forewarning audiences of the perils posed by post-war idealists who were overly ambitious. The emphasis on Richard’s success and the circumstances that made it possible shows how the play’s world might be viewed as a societal critique. This brings to mind early modern England, where the persona of 24 | P a g e Richard was employed to make political allusions to specific people like Cecil or Cromwell (Aune ibid). The portrayal of Richard has continually recalled European fascism since World War II, even though Anglo-American productions of Richard III were not openly political in the 1940s. One critic of the 1961 Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) production of Richard III with Christopher Plummer found that it reminded him of World War II and contemporary events. These productions and others at the time appeared to be providing a cultural function of reassurance. The invocation of Nazism can be understood as a sign of relief that the danger was safely over, similar to how it may have been with the posthumous Cecil libels. (Aune 2006:36). In 1960 Peter Hall and John Barton attempted to contextualise their RSC production of Richard III. Rather than linking Richard to a specific person, they created a cycle based on the three Henry VI plays and Richard III called The Wars of Roses. Here Richard’s position was at the end of the cycle rather than centred in his own play. Hall remarked that, despite the play’s historical setting, the RSC produced drama relevant to the present (Aune 2006:37). In the Theatre Company of Boston’s staging of Richard III in 1973, with Al Pacino in the lead role, the production seemed to have escaped the shadow of Stalin and others. The production instead used Richard to shed light on, if not question, Nixon. It provided insight into political events rather than using historical figures (like Hitler and others) to highlight Richard (Aune 2006:38). According to Aune (2006:41), “[A] reinvention of Richard’s stage potential as a means of social or political critique seems to have required the emergence of a figure that could, at least for a moment, eclipse the image of the European black leather tyrant”. However, she recognises that using figures like Hitler or Stalin established a bridge between the audience, who had little knowledge of the play and the play itself. On the other hand, such a production becomes uncritical and does not comment on current and recent events. With Ian McKellen’s portrayal of Richard III in the 1990 production of the Royal National Theatre, director Richard Eyre depended on the audience’s knowledge of European fascism. By relying on this knowledge, he presented a play that, instead of using simple history to contextualise the production, ‘proposed a historical possibility’18 (Aune 2006:42). 18 Premise for the concept of the Richard III adaptation to be discussed later. 25 | P a g e 1.1.2 Richard’s deformity An evident trend in interpreting Richard III and subsequent performances was to focus on Richard as a political figure. At East 15, on the other hand, we also discussed the question, ‘How would you, as a director, approach Richard’s deformity?’ Over the years, there have been several interpretations of Richard’s deformity. Bate (2008b:168) states, "Richard’s ‘unnatural’ tendencies are linked in the text with animal imagery”. Old Queen Margaret refers to Richard as a ‘Bottle’d Spider’ and a ‘Bunch-backt Toade’19. Critics were repulsed in 1970 by Norman Rodway’s portrayal of Richard resembling a pig: “He lumbers on stage at Stratford, blinking at the sun: his great pig-head appears to have been crew-cut, and some animal’s skin is slung over his hump” (Nightingale 197020 in Bate 2008b:168). In 1984 Anthony Sher approached Richard, focusing on the ‘Bottle’d Spider’ reference. Sher performed Richard using crutches that looked like “… huge black arachnid-legs which flew him across the stage in giant leaps…” (O’Conner 2003:11321 in Bate 2008b:168). In 1992 Simon Russel Beale performed Richard as a ‘Bunch-backt Toade’. Nightingale (199222 in Bate 2008b:170) describes Beale’s Richard as a “… scrubbed skull, pink jowls and a vast hump …”. In 1980 Alan Howard portrayed Richard as a “… cripple getting even with those who have the use of their legs …”. Besides the surgical boot, “Mr Howard is encumbered with a chain round the left thigh which he has to tug to get the leg moving” (Wardle 198023 in Bate 2008b:170). In 1995 David Troughton portrayed Richard “in the manner of a sinister clown”, whereas, in 2003, the theme of childhood was essential in the design of Sean Holmes’s production. Norman Rodway’s performance of Richard in 1970 bordered on a ‘naughty adolescent’ (Bate 2008b:170–172). There are as many interpretations of the character of Richard III as there are different approaches to his deformity. In 2011, Richard III formed part of the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Ontario, Canada. Seana McKenna, an actress in the title role, introduced ‘a sort of’ femininity to the character. It was almost as though his handicap was not so much his physical deformity but that he was born immature, more feminine. In her review, Laura Estill (2012:147) argues that “… McKenna’s Richard can best be understood in its relation to the early modern Galenic one-sex model24. For Galen and later Renaissance physicians who adopted his views, women were deficient men; for them, a vagina was simply an inverted penis, and a lack of heat in utero caused the phallus 19 Act 1, scene 3, Lines 712–717 20 Nightingale, B. 1970. New Statemen, 24 April. 21 O’Conner, J. 2003. Shakespearean Afterlives: Ten Characters with a Life of Their Own. Cambridge: Icon Books Ltd. 22 Nightingale, B. 1992. The Times, 13 August. 23 Wardle, I. 1980. The Times, 5 November. 24 Estill (2012:148) states: In the Galenic one-sex model, a person can only be identified as a man or a "less-perfect" man. 26 | P a g e not to turn out. Like a woman, Richard is a deficient man because of his physical deformity …” This aspect is underscored in Queen Margaret’s insult: Thou eluish mark’d, abortiue rooting Hogge, 697 Thou that wast seal’d in thy Natiuitie The slaue of Nature, and the Sonne of Hell: Thou slander of thy heauie Mothers Wombe, Estill (2012:148) found that the subtle femininity in McKenna’s portrayal of Richard underscored his unmanliness. I was fortunate to see this production, which initiated this study and the search for queer cues25 in Shakespeare’s works. The search for queer cues was further influenced by Sir Ian McKellen’s screen adaptation of Richard III, based on Richard Eyre’s stage production for the Royal National Theatre with Sir McKellen as the titular character. In McKellen’s screen adaptation, the character Tyrrel is in more scenes than in the original script. After his appearance early in the film, he is always at Richard’s side. The first time Richard sees Tyrrel, he does a double-take while Tyrrel, with blond hair and blue eyes, gives Richard a seductive look. Tyrrel is also the first character to become a member of Richard’s private guard after Richard is crowned king. This hint of homosocial bonding between McKellen’s Richard and Tyrrel might be more noticeable because Sir Ian McKellen is one of the most prominent openly gay actors in the film industry. Friedman (2009:568) even comments that defeat by Richmond, whose heterosexuality is stressed in the film, over Richard “… represents the triumph of married sexuality over depraved sexual defiance”. As seen in the Stratford performance, Richard’s feminine behaviour, together with Ian McKellen’s subtle hint at Richard’s sexuality, lead to the questions of this study. How would a queer interpretation of the play, using the notion that Richard was born as a ‘less perfect’ man, influence his identity and desire? Would his sexuality, or rather his self-consciousness about his deformity and sexuality and possibly his subsequent struggle with his sexuality, influence his villainy and desire to be King? It is interesting to note that Richard is responsible for the deaths of twelve characters, but not one by his own hand; most people are murdered by hired killers or executed for ‘treason’ after disobeying his orders. This further supports the idea of Richard as a ‘less perfect’ man. Suppose Richard could be in a relationship with a male character who commits these murders for him; what possibilities does this notion open up for a new adaptation from a queer perspective? 25 The concept of queer cues are defined later in the chapter. 27 | P a g e The study will therefore look at possible ways in which such a relationship can be created in the adaptation process of Richard III. 1.2 Why Hamlet This idea of characters ‘struggling’ is a recurring theme in Shakespeare’s plays. Hamlet is the character that displays this never-ending ‘struggle’ most comprehensively: ‘To be, or not to be, that is the Question’. Bickley & Stevens (2013:99) claim that Hamlet has never fallen out of favour with audiences, critics and scholars, even with all the variations performed over the centuries. Frank Kermode (1985:62, cited in Bickley & Stevens 2013:99) attributes this to the play’s ‘perpetual modernity’, which allows the play to be ‘remade in the image of each new generation’. Mention Hamlet in artistic and scholarly circles, and immediately there is a debate about what the play is all about. Bate (2008a:4) calls Hamlet a “political drama and a play about the journey of an individual self”. Crystal (2013:3) summarises Hamlet as a play of “murder, grief, guilt, possible suicide, incest, fratricide, regicide”. He adds that it concerns a prince struggling with abstract ideas about morality and philosophy. In a letter to a friend in 1897, Freud (1966:265–266, cited in Gil Harris 2012:84) compared the characters of Oedipus and Hamlet, and came to consider “falling in love with the mother and jealousy of the father … as a universal event of early childhood”. The Welsh psychoanalyst, Ernest Jones, used this Freudian theory in his psychoanalytical literary critique of Hamlet and Oedipus.26 This Freudian theme of Hamlet’s repressed Oedipal desire for his mother, Gertrude, was the basis for Laurence Olivier’s portrayal of Hamlet in his 1947 adaptation (Gil Harris 2012:84). Another theme often discussed is Hamlet’s so-called madness and melancholy. Crystal (2013:117– 118) asks, “So, is Hamlet mad?”. He gives three possible answers: “Yes, no, and he starts off sane and ends up mad”. There are several interpretations but there seems to be consensus on “Yes - he is mad”. But Crystal (ibid) also mentions the following: Horatio warns Hamlet that the ghost might ‘draw you into madnesse’; the ghost warns Hamlet ‘Taint not thy mind’; Hamlet makes Horatio and Marcellus swear not to say anything if he ‘put an Anticke disposition on’; he confesses to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (without their realising it) that he is not mad when he says ‘I am but mad North, 26 Jones, E. 1954. Hamlet and Oedipus: A classical study in the psychoanalysis of literature. New York: Doubleday. 28 | P a g e North- West: when the / Winde is Southerly, I know a Hawke from a Handsaw’, and he is also quite lucid when he returns from England in Act 5. There are several interpretations of the ‘To be, or not to be’ speech. It is one of the most famous Shakespeare speeches and one of the most debated speeches in Hamlet. Crystal (2013:119) argues that, in most productions, this speech is clearly taken to be about suicide. In a recent production at the Barbican, London, with Benedict Cumberbatch in the title role, the director heavily focused on Hamlet’s ultimate desire to commit suicide by having the actor come on stage with a noose around his neck for this soliloquy. Other claims have been made that the ‘To be, or not to be’ speech is about whether to kill Claudius or not. Crystal (2013:119) makes an interesting observation; as a point of departure for the speech, one could adopt “the notion of life and death, or being and not being”. Here we can refer to Bate’s statement (2008a:4) that it is also about “the journey of an individual self”. In my case, ‘to accept being gay or not to accept being gay’. As a teenager and even into my early 20s, this was my biggest struggle, not coming out but accepting that I am gay. That was the part of me this speech seriously addressed, viz., the struggle of acceptance. But can it be interpreted that Hamlet could, in the ‘To be, or not to be’ speech, be struggling with his sexuality? But how could this speech be about his sexuality? For me, the answer lies in the unexpected entrance of Hamlet’s friend, Horatio. It is interesting to observe the relationship between Horatio and Hamlet. Horatio is present in key moments of the play. Most of Horatio’s interactions are with Hamlet. Only after Hamlet’s exile does Horatio interact with other characters, e.g. Gertrude and Claudius. It is not clear from where Horatio originates. All we know is that he is not part of the court. He is from a lower social class than Hamlet. He is, however, well-