Edward IIIFor anyone saying, "Huh?" right now, let me say that EIII is one of the "Apocryphal Plays" that have been credited wholly or in part to Shakespeare at one time or another but that do not have conclusive proof of authorship by Big Bill Rattlepike. In the Second Edition of the Oxford Shakespeare Complete Works, the whole text of all plays the editors are convinced Shakespeare had a hand in is printed. This means that they have made the brave decision to include Edward III, convinced as they are that Shakepeare wrote up to four scenes in the play. The text has undergone every stylistic and vocubulary test known to scholarship and there is a growing consensus that Shakespeare wrote some, at least, of this play. Now, I don't know anything about these tests, but if you'd asked me which scenes stood out as the best, I'd have picked the four that the present editors claim were by Big Bill the Bard.The play is a straightforward history, showing Edward the III first having trouble with the Scots then invading France, where his son gets caught, massively outnumbered, in a valley surrounded by hills...Cue ridiculous triumph-against-the-odds...Between the two are some scenes where the King meets an exceptionally attractive member of the Nobility and woos her, despite being already married himself. These scenes raise the bar in terms of the language used and feeling expressed and are reminiscent of numerous similar scenes by Shakespeare - I could easily believe he wrote them. Later, the Prince of Wales, pensive before apparently insurmountable odds of battle, finds courage whilst meditating on the inevitability of death. Once again these passages are reminiscent of other famous Shakespeare scenes.The plot is reminiscent of Henry V and I can easily imagine that Shakespeare took this play and used it as the model for that later, greater and entirely solo effort.What Edward III lacks are depth of characterisation, depth of feeling conveyed by the language (outside the four scenes mentioned above) and a unity in the whole. The early part with Edward's attempted adultery seems disconnected from the subsequent invasion of France.Even taken alone, Henry V eliminates all these problems.This play illustrates to me the genius of Shakespeare: he was able to take a populist form that demanded a continuous supply of fresh material that allowed little time for rehearsal and create work that showed such psychological and dramatic insight in such glorious language that it transcended his era to the extent of him being widely considered the best Britsh playwright ever to have lived, 400 years later.The Merchant of VeniceWell that was - short! Also, fun. It's a mess of a play in some respects - the plotting and structure are a muddle. The dramatic crisis occurs in act 4, leaving the entire last act over to the kind of banter and romantical silliness typified by As You Like It's forest scenes, which could feel anti-climactic if not played up to the hilt in performance, because when it come down to it,this play is dominated by Shylock. So much so that it ended up also popularly known by the alternative title The Jew of Venice and, in an era when actors dominated performance decisions, frequently curtailed at the end of act 4 when Shylock's part is over and the dramatic crisis is resolved.This seems typical of the comedies, where much of the plot is an excuse to get a bunch of people into romantic shenanigans and the women into disguise as men, with little of the concern for pace or structure that we tend to demand of an genre of film these days. It's not that he couldn't do it - Richard III and Hamlet, even if bloated in places, certainly show how to organise things and Henry V doesn't even have much excess verbiage. MacBeth (aided no doubt by Middleton's many interventions) is superbly constructed and never slow - hence I conclude that Shakespeare was all about the laughs in his early comedies and never mind the preposterousness or the plots that go away for three acts.There is no escaping the fact that Shylock dominates this play; his character is the only one developed to any real depth and the fact that the debate rages to this day as to whether Shakespeare and his contemporary audiences would have seen him as sympathetic or merely a pantomime villain testifies to this. Because a case can be made either way, villain or victim it seems plain to me that what we have is a sympathetic antagonist - not a monster everybody loves to hate but a human whose flaws in the end bring his own downfall in the very definition of Shakespearean Tragedy. He's abused and railed against for doing what Christians won't whilst at the same time being patronised by the very same people because he is fulfilling an essential function in a market economy and earning a living from it. When the opportunity arises he must have revenge, not the moral high ground of magnanimity and mercy - there-in lies the seed of his destruction.It's hard not to compare this with Jonson, given that they were contemporaries and I recently finished a five play volume by one of the men said to have drunk Shakespeare into the fever that killed him. The contrasts are in fact stronger - Jonson being more prosaic, less witty in banter and more prone to showing off his learning, especially by quoting Latin and more concerned with "ordinary" folk than the rich and powerful. Shakespeare here also shows his mastery of character (if only in the form of Shylock) whilst the best of Jonson is much more in the way of caricature.The Merry Wives of WindsorThis play doesn't seem to have enjoyed much popularity in my (adult) lifetime - I can't remember hearing about, let alone actually seeing, any film or stage production of it - and I can't understand why. It's ripe with opportunities for visual humour, has everybody's favourite character from Henry IV, much wit and punning, a more coherent plot than many another Shakespeare comedy and even offers wide scope to set and costume designers. I'd love to see this, filmed, or, even better, live on stage.For those not in the know, the play revolves around an episode from John Falstaff's life prior to his association with Prince Hal, in which he attempts to cuckold his neighbours. There is a subplot regarding who will marry one Anne Page, from three suitors, leading to a typically Shakespearean ending with (implied) happy marriage.In one sense this is a-typical Shakespeare - despite ostensibly being historical - set in the reign of Henry IV - it could, if you changed the characters' names, not be identified as anything other than contemporary with the author. It also deals not with the high-born and rich but with professionals and labourers - and rogues and thieves - making it very Jonsonian.Julius CaesarMy first exposure to Shakespeare was this play, read in English class, when I was 13. Apparently it is a very popular choice in schools because it has no "bawdy." This wasn't any concern of my teacher, though, as he had us reading MacBeth later the same year.Julius Caesar didn't go down very well; it was terribly confusing. Caesar dies half way through having done and said very little. What was that all about? The only bit that I remember liking was Antony's great rhetorical swaying of the plebians. The way he achieved that was fascinating.My second encounter with the play was an outdoor performance in the courtyard of Conwy Castle, my main memory of which was having a sore bum because of inadequate cushioning from the courtyard floor (sat as I was on a couple of camping mats placed directly on the flagstones). So not much joy there either. And the whole structure was still confusing - it isn't about Julius! This fact was never explained by my teacher. But there is an explanation: the play is based on Classical dramatic models where-in this type of thing happens quite often. The central figure of the title is an enigma around which the real action revolves - the motive force for chaos and tragedy more by other people's responses to him than by his direct actions. And that's what we have here. Shakespeare writing a play after the fashion of the Latin dramatists he was familiar with from school, who in turn were following the fashion and subject matter of the Greek plays of antiquity.Now, having learned this and also having come into contact with some of that ancient drama, I re-read Julius Caesar and find that it does in fact make sense, structurally if looked at this way. There is no central character except Caesar, despite him being conspicuous by his absence. There have been attempts to re-cast (and re-name) it as the Tragedy of Brutus but these are distortions or adaptations. The fact is that Cassius, Antony and Brutus are all compared and contrasted with each other and with Caesar and this is a necessary thing for understanding the character of each. Cassius's worldly motivations and ready perception of character are the opposite of Brutus's lofty ideals and inability to recognise that he is being used. Antony is motivated as much by will to power as by revenge; Cassius is aware of this. Brutus is a fool politically but is the superior general it turns out; they ould have won if Cassius had been more careful on the battlefield and Caesar - he's a greater figure than all of them put together, though he's just a man, with human frailties as Cassius points out, remembering how he saved Caesar from drowning in the Tiber. Greater - but for reasons not clear, not ever expressed - and the eye of the storm.It's a fascinating mess and everybody ends up dead except Antony who walks off with the power and all the best lines in the play, back in that crucial "Friends, Romans, countrymen..." scene that forms the bulk of Act 3. The bit I liked even when I didn't have a clue about the rest - still the best part, even with the rest suddenly making sense.Troilus and CressidaThe Oxford Companion to Shakespeare mentions that early 19th Century critics were "baffled" by this play. I have some sympathy with them; I don't really know what Bill was trying to do with this one. No contemporary writer worth the name would plot the final two acts this way, for a start. Now plotting was never Bill's strongest suit but we aren't talking about one of his daft comedies where you can ignore plot development in exchange for extreme verbal and physical comedy down in the woods tonight and go home chuckling at what you've seen and heard and not really caring about the absurdity of it all. Nor is this Romeo and Juliet 2.0, despite the set up in the first three acts where we start with a lot of wit and word play and silliness but get progressively more serious as time goes on, ending up with a full-on Tragic denouement and a bold statement about the destructive nature of feuding and partisan violence within respectable society that is alarmingly relevant 400 years later. Here, if there is a Tragic figure at all it is Hector, sadly too naively trusting in others' honour because his own is impeccable, rather than Troilus or Cressida, let alone both. And the play, despite having two endings, never really resolves the issue of the Troilus-Cressida-Diomedes love triangle at all. It's a mess.Apparently more recent criticism has focused on Shakespeare's treatment of sexuality in the play but I don't really find the idea that people can be fickle and inconstant and driven by other people's looks all that profound or interesting, though I find it believable that Bill might have been aiming at a discussion of it.So what I'm left with is a play that starts humourous then becomes amusingly chaotic and diverting in the final act (alarums and excursions abound) but stops rather than really concludes and suffers horribly in comparison with the Iliad's treatment of all the characters they have in common - a comparison that, at least while reading off the page, is unavoidable to anyone who has previously encountered Achilles' rage as described by Homer.And on we go to Sir Thomas More, a play for which Shakespeare wrote probably only one or two scenes.
Shakespeare requires no introduction -- he is "the Bard," the most imposing playwright and storyteller in the English language.And "William Shakespeare: The Complete Works" brings together every one of his thirty-nine plays and his brilliant poetry. His stage work ranges wildly from harrowing tragedies to airy little puffs of comedy which are even more moving when paired with the romantically intense, complicated sonnets and narrative poems. While it takes some work to fully understand some of his work, the powerful, complicated characters and vivid writing are timeless.The plays basically are divided into comedies, histories and tragedies. The tragedies are pretty much... tragic. The comedies are of the classical variety -- not always funny (usually, but not always) but you know they will end semi-happily. And the histories... well, dramatizations of history, mostly about British kings and the Roman empire.And everybody has heard of the greats here -- the Scottish lord who murders his way to kingship, young lovers divided by a feud, a Moorish general who is driven mad with jealousy, an elderly king whose arrogance rips his life apart, a very cleaned-up version of Henry VIII's split from his first wife, the goofy Prince Hal and his growth into a great king. There are feuding fairies, bickering lovers, romantic tangles, Julius Caesar's demise, gender-bending, an exiled duke/magician on his island, and the infamous "pound of flesh" bargain.But Shakespeare also wrote a bunch of lesser-known plays that often can't be so neatly categorized -- a rotten love affair during the siege of Troy, a Roman general attacking his own city, an Athenian gentleman embittered by humanity, Richard III's Machiavellian plot to become king, two sets of twins separated at birth, a corrupt judge obsessed with a lovely nun, Falstaff's doomed efforts to make money, and so on. Some of these ("Troilus and Cressida") aren't nearly as good as his "main" body of work, but they're still excellent.The "complete works" also have his poetry, including his two narrative poems and his long string of romantic sonnets. The sonnets are best appreciated as a whole, since a lot of the message is lost if you don't read them sequentially. There are two substantial cycles here -- the cyle dedicated to a beautiful young man that Shakespeare seems to criticize and adore alternately (and no, Sonnet 116 is not a mindless, soppily-romantic ode, but a single piece of a larger argument with the "master-mistress") and a more explicitly sexual cycle for the Dark Lady.For all Shakespeare's plays, it's best to read them AFTER you've seen a good performance. They were meant to be SEEN by the masses, not read. Otherwise, it's like reading a movie script to a movie you haven't seen -- easy to get lost, and the dramatic effects aren't easy to connect to. But if you've seen performances of any/all of Shakespeare's plays, then his vibrant stories and poetry leap off the page.There are long eloquent speeches, puns, clever linguistic twists, and evocative language that soaks the play in atmosphere ("With sweet musk-roses and with eglantine/There sleeps Titania sometime of the night/Lull'd in these flowers with dances and delight..."). In fact, his plays are diamond mines of quotations -- some are infamous ("To be or not to be") and some of which have floated into public knowledge without labels ("Cowards die many times before their deaths/The valiant never taste of death but once").And while some of his plays are basically fluff, he manages to weave in moral questions, criticism and explorations of the human soul. And his characters range as far as his plots -- kings and princes, teenage lovers, proud but doomed men, bratty queens, the witty but combative Beatrice and Benedick, and even the puppet-master mage Prospero.Shakespeare's "Complete Works" is a must-have for anyone who loves the English language -- his writing was unparalleled, his poems sublimely clever and layered, and even his lesser plays are a cut above the rest.
What do You think about The Complete Works (1990)?
Well, what can I say? I decided to begin the year by reading the complete works of the Bard. I spent nearly every day for the past two months with the Immortal Bard, tangled in the deep richness of his verse, reading all of his 37 plays (I am not counting here “The Two Noble Kinsmen,” which has only recently and contentiously been added to the Shakespearean cannon) and the entire poetry (the sonnets and minor epics). Now that I am finished I feel a plethora of emotions. First and foremost, I feel very accomplished. I also feel somewhat relieved, as I can now move on to other works (though I did read many other books in between). I am also a bit melancholy; it is like bidding adieu to a dear friend. But I also know that this is not a goodbye, but rather a “see you later,” as I will certainly revisit many (though perhaps not all) of these works in the future. Shakespeare’s verse is probably the most beautiful in the English language. His poesy is rich, deep and multi-dimensional, his prose, flowery and magical. It has been an influence to nearly every writer, and not just those in the Western tradition. For me, I had read only a few of the sonnets before and some of the plays. I had previously read both “Macbeth” and “Richard III” twice, and “Romeo and Juliet” four times. I enjoyed each of these before, and they are still among my very favorites. Though this was my first time reading many of the works, it will certainly not be my last, and due to their cultural significance, I already had a good familiarity with many of the characters (Lear and Cordelia, Hamlet and Ophelia, Prospero and Miranda, Othello, Desdemona and Iago) and themes (the madness of Hamlet, the jealousy of Othello, the forgiveness of Prospero). I learned that I like best the tragedies, then the histories, then the comedies (this is a loose system of classification – there are problem plays, romances, English histories, Roman histories), but all of them have merit and I would list some of each among my favorites. I tried to make a list of the plays from my favorite to least favorite, but I realized that this is incredibly difficult and that my preference could be influenced by deep thinking, conversation or re-reading. But here is a (very flexible) list: 1. King Lear (a tragic tale of filial piety, greed, vanity and love)2. Richard III (this was my third reading this tragic and dark tale and I like it better every time)3. Hamlet (after rereading parts of the play I considered moving this to the top spot; some of the best lines in any Shakespeare play) 4. Macbeth (this was my third reading and, as with Richard III, I appreciated it more now than ever before; as with Hamlet, when I reread parts of this story about conscience and greed I considered moving it up on this list)5. Romeo and Juliet (fifth reading; the final lines of dialogue and the window/balcony scene alone cement its place in the top ten) 6. Measure for Measure (I loved this when I first read it; I still enjoyed it when I revisited some of its pages, though not as much as I did at first) 7. The Merchant of Venice (Shylock and Portia’s lines are my favorite)8. The Winter’s Tale (so tragic in the first three acts, but with a surprisingly happy ending; a great problem play that could also be classified as a comedy – loosely – or, rather fittingly, as a romance) 9. Othello (I appreciated this more upon rereading some of the scenes – the jealousy of Othello and the treachery of Iago, perhaps the most heinous villain in the entirety of Shakespeare’s works)10. Coriolanus (As with “Measure for Measure” I really enjoyed this tale of revenge on my first reading, particularly the relationship between Coriolanus and his mother, though I found it less enjoyable upon a selected re-reading) 11. A Midsummer Night’s Dream (a dreamlike fantasy; Puck’s last speech is the best) 12. Antony and Cleopatra (Comparatively, not the best verse, but a very complex and rich play, which makes it worthy of a high spot on the list) 13. As You Like It (Worthwhile for Jaques’ soliloquy – “All the world’s a stage” – and for the relationship between Celia and Rosalind; is there a truer friend than Celia?) 14. Julius Caesar (I was surprised by how little Caesar is in the play; it has some very memorable and famous brief lines spoken by Caesar, but its strength really lies in the complexity of Brutus’ character and the famous speeches by Mark Antony – “Friends, Romans, countrymen . . .”) 15. King John (on second reading of some favorite scenes, I might switch this with any of the Henry plays or with Richard II)16. Much Ado About Nothing (a cute love story with a classic villain, Don John; Don Pedro and Beatrice’s lines are my favorite) 17. The Taming of the Shrew (the characters – Bianca, Katharina and Petruchio – and storyline are memorable; I would likely place this higher if it didn’t come across as so misogynistic; I have trouble reading Katharina’s famous ending monologue as irony) 18. 3 Henry VI (the ending of this one leads into one of my favorites: Richard III) 19. Twelfth Night (“If music be the food of love, play on.” A memorable love story; the side story about poor Malvolio is what really makes it, though) 20. 2 Henry IV (the strengths of both 1 and 2 Henry IV lie in the strained relationship between father and son and in the humour added by John Falstaff) 21. 1 Henry IV (Part 2 is certainly better than part one) 22. Richard II (this leads us into the Henry IV plays and it has some of the best lines of dialogue, particularly the lines delivered by John of Gaunt)23. Henry V (I liked Henry’s speeches about his humanity, about the burdens of being a king, but disliked because it seemed a praise to war) 24. Timon of Athens (Probably my favorite of Shakespeare’s lesser known plays, and it likely deserves a much higher place in the list; a story about human nature and greed – sort of like “A Christmas Carol” or “It’s a Wonderful Life” in reverse)25. 2 Henry VI (both 1 and 2 Henry VI could be moved up in this list, but not sure where) 26. 1 Henry VI (the series of four plays, ending with Richard III, that tells the story of the War of the Roses, that bloody history of the Yorks and Lancasters)27. Cymbeline (one of my other favorite lesser known plays, with one of the most wicked stepmothers in literature; I appreciated it less on a second reading of some of the scenes, however)28. The Tempest (a story about forgiveness, thought to be the last play Shakespeare wrote; I just couldn't really get into it)29. Titus Andronicus (a gross-out play, 17th century style – cannibalism, rape, murder; the play has waned and grown in appreciation over the years; the story line is seared into your brain, but the writing is not the best) 30. All’s Well That Ends Well (this could be moved up as well, but it bore many similarities to “Measure for Measure”; Parolles and Lafeu make the work)31. The Two Gentlemen of Verona (I enjoyed this comedy more on the first reading than the brief rereading of some of the scenes) 32. Troilus and Cressida (I appreciated more on a second rereading of some of the scenes)33. Pericles (not the finest writing, and it is questionable how much of the work Shakespeare actually wrote, but the recognition scenes at the end of Act V make it a heartwarming romance, with elements similar to “The Winter’s Tale”) 34. The Merry Wives of Windsor (Falstaff makes the story, but it was one of my least favorite comedies) 35. The Comedy of Errors (this was one that I struggled to get into – a play about mistaken identity) 36. King Henry VIII (this one I just struggled to get into. It is not only my least favorite history, but one of my least favorite plays, with writing that just seemed strained at times)37. Love’s Labour’s Lost (so full of witty puns, but without footnotes/endnotes, it is difficult to appreciate; it was hard to get into and a bit stale – this work has not aged as well as some of Shakespeare’s other classics). The poetry too is wonderful and I cannot possibly list the sonnets and minor epics (like “Lucrece” and “Venus and Adonis” in order of favorite to least favorite). What makes the Bard’s works so lasting is their ambiguity, their fluidity and their universality. Many of the works can be interpreted in so many different ways. Love, jealousy, greed, shame, revenge, questions about human nature, are all weaved in so deeply through the annals of history and into the human condition, and Shakespeare writes about these emotional complexities with more depth and feeling than perhaps any other poet. The works are timeless – they’ve already been appreciated for more than 400 years, and will be valued for much longer in written word and upon the stage. In the near future, I would like to see productions of some of these works and in the next year or two, I may revisit some of the works on an individual basis. It is just for now that I say, “Goodnight, goodnight! Parting is such sweet sorrow.”
—Ben
How do you honestly review Shakespeare? Other than simply say the Bard was a genius in storytelling, character creation, and (of course) writing. But just saying that seems too simple even though it's the truth. It is a shame that people seem to get scared off from reading Shakespeare because of the language. For me, part of the appeal of his works is his language. It's like a chameleon that changes to the setting and mood; at times, it can be beautiful and effortless like poetry, and at other times it's foreboding and intense. Emotion just pours through and I can see why his plays would probably be a joy to land a role in.In terms of this particular volume, this is a Shakespeare lover's dream find - complete with a black leather cover and gold-trimmed, antiquated-looking pages. I got this as a Christmas gift one year and it is one of my most prized books because it contains every Shakespeare play (and poem) known to man (I believe), from his famed works to his lesser-known plays. In short, if you love the Bard, then this book is a no-brainer to add to your shelf. And, yes, Shakespeare is actually easy to read once you get used to his style, which is uniquely his own.After all...
—Nicole Pramik
Have I read this book? Only part of it.But is anyone going to argue about my rating?See bottom of review for a list of the plays in orderWhat follows is little more than the GoodReads description of the edition pictured. But I feel I can do that, since I wrote the description.This tome includes all 37 of Shakespeare's plays, as well as his poems and sonnets. It was produced "for college students in the hope that it will help them to understand, appreciate, and enjoy the works for themselves. It is not intended for the scholar ..."Two-column format throughout.Introductory Material (90 pages):1. The Universality of Shakespeare2. Records of the Life of Shakespeare3. Shakespeare's England4. Elizabethan Drama5. The Elizabethan Playhouse6. The Study of the Text7. The Development of Shakespeare's Art8. Shakespeare and the Critics9. Shakespearean Scholarship and Criticism 1900-1950Plates:16 full-page Halftone Reproductions6 full-page Line Cuts9 pages of Notes on the PlatesThe Plays:Generally in order of writing.Each play has its own IntroductionFootnotes at the bottom of the columns. This makes them both handy and unobtrusive. I like.Appendices follow The Poems:30 Appendices in about the same number of pages; these deal with a wide variety of topics, everything from "The Melancholic Humor" to "Cuckolds and Horns" to "Hawks and Hawking".I don't know how it compares with other editions of Shakespeare's works. It is the one I have.Here are Shakespeare's 37 plays, in the order presented in this edition. This is the best guess (at the time the edition was printed) of the order in which they were written, when on my no-longer-young journey I read the play, and links to my review. (It will take several years for this quest to be completed.)1. The First Part of King Henry the Sixtht 2. The Second Part of King Henry the Sixtht 3. The Third Part of King Henry the Sixtht 4. The Tragedy of King Richard the Thirdt 5. The Comedy of Errorst 6. The Tragedy of Titus Andronicust 7. The Taming of the Shrewt 8. The Two Gentlemen of Veronat 9. Love's Labor's Lostt 10. The Tragedy of King Richard the Secondt 11. The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliett 12. A Midsummer Night's Dream _2014_Feb.t 13. The Life and Death of King Johnt 14. The Merchant of Venicet 15. The First Part of King Henry the Fourtht 16. The Second Part of King Henry the Fourtht 17. Much Ado About Nothingt 18. The Life of King Henry the Fiftht 19. As You Like It _2015_Feb.t 20. The Tragedy of Julius Caesart 21. Twelfth Night; or What You Willt 22. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarkt 23. The Merry Wives of Windsort 24. The Tragedy of Troilus and Cressidat 25. All's Well That Ends Well _2015_June 26. The Tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venicet 27. Measure For Measuret 28. The Tragedy of King Leart 29. The Tragedy of Macbetht 30. The Tragedy of Anthony and Cleopatrat 31. The Tragedy of Coriolanust 32. Timon of Athenst 33. Periclest 34. Cymbelinet 35. The Winter's Talet 36. The Tempestt 37. The Famous History of the Life of King Henry the Eightht
—Ted
