Rabkin, Norman. "Either/Or: Responding to Henry V." Shakespeare and the Problem of Meaning. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1981. Print.
We've looked at Henry's guilt/innocence and heroism/tyranny from just about every angle now. Voices on this issue have come from a number of sources: biographers, journalists, lawyers, Shakespeare, and you as well. One of the key skills you will be asked to demonstrate in any writing situation in your college career is engagement with critical, academic voices. So, for our final judgement of Henry's reign, we turn to Shakespearean scholar Norman Rabkin. As you read his essay "Either/Or: Responding to Henry V," your focus should not only be on what Rabkin argues and the evidence he uses, but also on the style of Rabkin's writing. How does this academic discourse differ from the other forms of writing we have encountered so far? We sets this apart as a different genre, as a directed at a different audience, as pursuing a different purpose?
Note that in his essay, Rabkin will reference the other plays in the second tetralogy: Richard II and Henry IV, Parts 1&2. You should be able to make sense of Rabkin's argument just from the passages he includes (and if you can't--what does that mean for his use of evidence?) but if you can't, feel free to look up the plays on CliffNotes/Wikipedia to get a general idea of what they cover.