It has been pointed out that the only thing Fritz did that was so shocking was do to white people close to home what everyone considered unremarkable when done overseas to non-white people.
Verily. The Prussian Man's burden?
It won't indeed, because I had already read it and left kudos!
Aw, thank you.
A sufficiently motivated Heinrich could make this look like suicide, is what I'm saying.
Now I'm imagining an Elizabethan playwright - or for that matter good old Schiller, who had no trouble altering history so Jeanne d'Arc dies in battle, not on the stake - let lose and giving Heinrich a "Should I avenge AW, stop a war and kill den einzigen Godbrother, yes or no?" monologue. And Generations of school children having to write essays about all the subjects raised:
"The death of August Wilhelm and the sacrifice of Iphigenia. Heinrich and Clytaimnestra naming their motives. Are they telling the truth or deluding themselves? Compare."
"Loyalty in war time versus tyrannicide. Heinrich does not just contemplate fratricide but the betrayal of his sworn oath as an officer of the Prussian army at a time the ccountry is at war. Does the prospect of ending the war justify Breaking this oath? Can Heinrich claim preservation of the Nation supercedes loyalty to his commander? Does tyrannicide apply when Friedrich is an enlightened Monarch? Discuss."
"How honest about his motives is Heinrich, even to himself? Henri de Catt, who functions as a Greek Chorus in the play, later calls him "envious, scheming wretch" whose "jealousy of the great Friedrich, whose lofty grace he never could achieve" was his true motivation. Is he right? Discuss."
A movie scriptwriter would not bother with a monologues and motivations. Heinrich is a younger brother of a powerful king with issues about his older brother. What purpose does he serve in the character cast if not to scheme and be defeated? And there would be no problem reversing the order of the dates so Glasow can act on Heinrich's behalf. As for a playwright, I predict the following:
1.) Classical version. Glasow is a minor villain who gets dispensed with easily ("Off with his head; so much for Glasow") while the main showdown is between the Brothers.
2.) Revisionist 20th century and onwards Version, first written by Brecht: Glasow is the hero, who starts out as a naive common man full of ideals who gets caught up in the psycho power game between two royal brothers. He first gets disillusioned by Fritz and too late realises Heinrich is not much better, and that he was but a tool and success would not have brought a free Prussia but just a change of tyrant. In the final scene, the actor playing Glasow removes his historical coat and adresses the audience, calling for revolution by the people, since there is no such thing as reformation from above and rulers fancying themselves enlightened monarchs can never be trusted.
(21st century essay theme: "Is Brecht's depiction of Heinrich's and Friedrich's homosexuality as part of their exploitation of the working man homophobic? Discuss.")
Genderbent Heinrich is also evil in a different way.
Well, yes. (Though would make Lehndorff's descendant's life easier, considering they tried to change all the il and lui into elle early into the diaries.) My beta back then wrote "ouch!" beneath that line and said that other than "Because Sonny died for Connie, and his death took any chance Michael had not to live their father's life with it" it was the most haunting line of the Story for her, so I'm glad to hear it works for you this way, too!
Re: The Heinrich Letters - War Time
Verily. The Prussian Man's burden?
It won't indeed, because I had already read it and left kudos!
Aw, thank you.
A sufficiently motivated Heinrich could make this look like suicide, is what I'm saying.
Now I'm imagining an Elizabethan playwright - or for that matter good old Schiller, who had no trouble altering history so Jeanne d'Arc dies in battle, not on the stake - let lose and giving Heinrich a "Should I avenge AW, stop a war and kill den einzigen Godbrother, yes or no?" monologue. And Generations of school children having to write essays about all the subjects raised:
"The death of August Wilhelm and the sacrifice of Iphigenia. Heinrich and Clytaimnestra naming their motives. Are they telling the truth or deluding themselves? Compare."
"Loyalty in war time versus tyrannicide. Heinrich does not just contemplate fratricide but the betrayal of his sworn oath as an officer of the Prussian army at a time the ccountry is at war. Does the prospect of ending the war justify Breaking this oath? Can Heinrich claim preservation of the Nation supercedes loyalty to his commander? Does tyrannicide apply when Friedrich is an enlightened Monarch? Discuss."
"How honest about his motives is Heinrich, even to himself? Henri de Catt, who functions as a Greek Chorus in the play, later calls him "envious, scheming wretch" whose "jealousy of the great Friedrich, whose lofty grace he never could achieve" was his true motivation. Is he right? Discuss."
A movie scriptwriter would not bother with a monologues and motivations. Heinrich is a younger brother of a powerful king with issues about his older brother. What purpose does he serve in the character cast if not to scheme and be defeated? And there would be no problem reversing the order of the dates so Glasow can act on Heinrich's behalf. As for a playwright, I predict the following:
1.) Classical version. Glasow is a minor villain who gets dispensed with easily ("Off with his head; so much for Glasow") while the main showdown is between the Brothers.
2.) Revisionist 20th century and onwards Version, first written by Brecht: Glasow is the hero, who starts out as a naive common man full of ideals who gets caught up in the psycho power game between two royal brothers. He first gets disillusioned by Fritz and too late realises Heinrich is not much better, and that he was but a tool and success would not have brought a free Prussia but just a change of tyrant. In the final scene, the actor playing Glasow removes his historical coat and adresses the audience, calling for revolution by the people, since there is no such thing as reformation from above and rulers fancying themselves enlightened monarchs can never be trusted.
(21st century essay theme: "Is Brecht's depiction of Heinrich's and Friedrich's homosexuality as part of their exploitation of the working man homophobic? Discuss.")
Genderbent Heinrich is also evil in a different way.
Well, yes. (Though would make Lehndorff's descendant's life easier, considering they tried to change all the il and lui into elle early into the diaries.) My beta back then wrote "ouch!" beneath that line and said that other than "Because Sonny died for Connie, and his death took any chance Michael had not to live their father's life with it" it was the most haunting line of the Story for her, so I'm glad to hear it works for you this way, too!