Which Complete Shakespeare Edition to Get?

The hardest part about getting into classic literature isn't the actual reading it, it's the deciding which of the billion editions to buy of anything. And since most Shakespeare editions aren't cheap, and you will be reading an author widely considered the greatest ever, this is no small decision. Reading reviews can be helpful and all, but the majority are usually by people who've only tried a few editions. Has anyone here been able to compare any of them? Here's the various volumes:

The Complete Pelican Shakespeare
World of Shakespeare (Penguin - doesn't include Rape of Lucrece and Venus and Adonis sadly)
Signet Classics
Complete Works (David Bevington)
The Riverside Shakespeare
Complete Shakespeare (Modern Library)
The Norton Shakespeare (based on Oxford Edition)

Of all of these, I really like the appeal of the Penguin set in having Shakespeare in individual books rather than a massive one-volume set. In terms of the one-volumes, the Bevington seems to be quite favored, though the Norton Edition is the only one that contains 3000+(!!!) pages, which means lots of editorial "bells and whistles" (of what value, I don't know). The Pelican might be a cheaper solution and it seems to be "reader friendly". In truth, I really have no clue which one to get though. I plan to eventually own more than one if for no other reason than comparison, but getting started with the "right" one is most important.

Please lend a n00b some help...

Riverside! It includes Edward III and Sir Thomas More.

Which edition you buy depends on whether you are studying individual plays or reading for your own pleasure, MS - if you have to take a copy to class, go for individual editions, they are easier to carry! I used to favour the Arden editions when I was studying.

I have just aquired a new edition of the Complete Works, thanks to a generous birthday gift of a Book Token - I chose the Royal Shakespeare Company edition after some thouht. It is a huge book, over 3000 pages, but I will be reading it at home not taking it around with me.

It is printed in a single column to the page which I find easier to read than my old edition which was printed in double column like an old bible.

It has the notes and glossary printed on the same page as the text. It has a good introduction to each play with sources, history of publication and performance and a brief critical assessment before each text.

But the main reason for my choice was that it is the text the RSC work from in their productions. I am fortunate enough to live not too far away from Stratford and am able to go to several productions a year. This edition makes preparation for each visit more likely to be useful.

It's for my own pleasure, I'm not in school. Thanks for the informative reply. Is the RSC's Complete Edition available online?

I really like the Norton's. The one I have is in 4 volumes (Tragedy, Comedy, History, Romance and Poetry) - I'm not sure if they are all like that or there is a massive tome of everything.

What I enjoy about it is:

1. The introductions are usually fantastic (I really like Stephen Greenblat)
2. It's based on the Oxford edition
3. At the end of the plays there are notes which show you were editors deviate from the 1623 folio.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

It's for my own pleasure, I'm not in school. Thanks for the informative reply. Is the RSC's Complete Edition available online?

---

Sorry for not replying MS - didn't realise you had asked a question. The short answer is I don't know - but there is a website: www.rscshakespeare.co.uk so will check. The RSC site (www.rsc.org.uk - I think) is always worth a visit.

I favor Riverside, for an American reader, at least. It is big, and can be used as a defensive weapon, or a bullet proof vest, but it has everything. I have some signet paperbacks for some individual plays.

The Riverside is the One. As for individual editions, I thought Arden was decent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

I really like the Norton's. The one I have is in 4 volumes (Tragedy, Comedy, History, Romance and Poetry) - I'm not sure if they are all like that or there is a massive tome of everything.

What I enjoy about it is:

1. The introductions are usually fantastic (I really like Stephen Greenblat)
2. It's based on the Oxford edition
3. At the end of the plays there are notes which show you were editors deviate from the 1623 folio.

---

That's the one I got an love. And it's big and green like the Incredible Hulk.

"The Oxford Shakespeare, the Complete Works" edited by John Jowett, William Montgomery, Gary Taylor, and Stanley Wells is the one I use. It contains the Sonnets, as well as "All Is True", "Sir Thomas More", "Two Noble Kinsmen", etc. , along with all his famous works.

Academically speaking, the Arden Shakespeare is considered the benchmark, with the Norton a slightly distant second. The RSC one is good if its just for personal use though!

Still, I'd go with the Arden.

The Arden paperbacks are great, but the complete volume doesn't hold a candle to the Riverside.

X

I have the RSC Complete Shakespeare and am reading it everyday - with great enjoyment. The notes are really good for anyone, like me, just reading for pleasure. The "bells and whistles" sing out a happy tune, with no bum notes, never "too many" notes, always enough notes, and always in the right place. Mozart would have been proud of this production. Bate should be knighted. So should Rasmussen, if that's possible...

According to most, it seems to come down to the RSC version versus the Riverside. I'm still not sure which of these to get. For people who've read either or both, what are the pros and cons for these two versions?

Along with footnotes and forwards, the Riverside includes an appendix to each play which notes the textual differences between earliest printings and why whichever takes precedence.

It is also now the most complete version with the inclusion of Edward III.

This is the edition that I was required as a classically trained actor to study from in school. If it's good enough for me, it's good enough for you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

Along with footnotes and forwards, the Riverside includes an appendix to each play which notes the textual differences between earliest printings and why whichever takes precedence.

It is also now the most complete version with the inclusion of Edward III.

This is the edition that I was required as a classically trained actor to study from in school. If it's good enough for me, it's good enough for you!

---

I might pick it up soon. It arrived at my bookstore and there's a 40% coupon going on at the moment.

I got the Riverside yesterday. It only cost $71 including tax! I also have the Norton Complete Shakespeare, which was only $8 a while ago miraculously. Still not sure which play I should start with yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir777

I got the Riverside yesterday. It only cost $71 including tax! I also have the Norton Complete Shakespeare, which was only $8 a while ago miraculously. Still not sure which play I should start with yet.

---

Well done, sir! :nod:

Start with Macbeth, then read Comedy of Errors. They're both very short and easy to read. You'll also have hit a tragedy and a comedy. I think your first history should be Henry V. It's a stand alone powerhouse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

Well done, sir! :nod:

Start with Macbeth, then read Comedy of Errors. They're both very short and easy to read. You'll also have hit a tragedy and a comedy. I think your first history should be Henry V. It's a stand alone powerhouse.

---

So you don't see any benefit to reading the histories in the chronological order that they should take place in? It won't be confusing, will it? I mean plot-wise. I just got done reading Iliad, so I might read something new like McCarthy first, but then I'll hit up some Shakespeare. I hope he doesn't decimate me too bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir777

So you don't see any benefit to reading the histories in the chronological order that they should take place in? It won't be confusing, will it? I mean plot-wise. I just got done reading Iliad, so I might read something new like McCarthy first, but then I'll hit up some Shakespeare. I hope he doesn't decimate me too bad.

---

Well when you want to read the Henry IV's and Henry VI's you should read those in order, but otherwise it doesn't really matter. Shakespeare didn't write them in chronological order. Beside, then you'd have to start with King John which is a slightly complex play.