http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle7063213.ece
What do we think?
Printable View
http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle7063213.ece
What do we think?
Hmmm, good publicity for the Royal Shakespeare Company.
I'll admit a certain curiosity about the play. Given that it didn't surface until much later, I will likely always have some reservations about its authenticity, but Shakespeare's writing has a unique sound about it that very few others seem to capture. If it has been authenticated by a publishing house, then I'm likely to read it myself to see how it stacks up against some of my favorites.
We are amused!Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
That and a number of other plays were published as works by Shakespeare in the past, then they were thrown out, and now some are being called Shakespeare's again, and who knows what changes will be made to Shakespeare's list of plays in the future?
The question is: Is the play any good?
That's what I'm curious about now. I tend to favor his comedies and tragedies, but I've never really been too interested in the historical ones. I just want to read now out of curiosity.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
From the title I would guess that it is a romantic comedy, but the article says that it has "been ridiculed as a hoax or just disregarded," which would suggest that isn't good enough to worry about. We will have to wait and see about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkhockenberry
Several versions of the play are available from this site:
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Doub...ood/index.html
I read the Times article on Saturday - the article seems compelling. The advent of digital versions made the cross referencing easier.
It's got to be worth a whirl.
Sounds like one of the lesser comedies. Double Falsehood is a rubbish title.
Why rework half of a might be a play when Edmund Ironside is so obviously a complete, if early and somewhat flawed (another flawed!), genuine Shakespeare?