Recommendations for Shakespeare

[bluosean]

It is probable that a thread with a similar title has been opened before. If that is the case, maybe someone will be able to bring it to my attention. New responses are nice too though.

Let me say first that I read quite often. Not as much as most of y'all but I have an OK background in English and American literature. I have read much less poetry than novels, but I have read some. I'm pretty happy with what I have read except for, perhaps, my exclusion of Shakespeare and a few other things. I want to finally get to Shakespeare but I'm not sure where to begin. Iv'e been put off because I have read A Midsummer's Night Dream, Macbeth, and parts of other plays, but, quite frankly, I could not understand the stuff. In part this was due to a lack of interest, since I was aware of the difficulty and often lost my concentration and thought of other things. But mostly it was because the plays are hard to read. I know most of the stories from growing up a native English speaker I guess. But I want to understand the plays word for word more or less. I want to read and understand what is happening. I think I can read this stuff. I just think that I need a lot of help. Well, anyway, here is what I am asking.

If anyone could recommend a good book, or books, to read. I don't really want to try a book without footnotes. It would be nice if many of the obscure words were defined right there on the same page. This would also help with understanding idioms, symbolism, etc. Any advice on which plays to start with would be nice too.

I going to throw this in here too. Same questions for Edmund Spencer. He is another one I have for a long time been wanting to read, but, finding his language difficult, I have been discouraged. I just can't see myself surviving a reading of his poems without them being heavily annotated or footnoted.

Thanks in advance for all replies.

[Charles Darnay]

First on the subject of A Midsummer Night's Dream: I have found more and more during my interactions with this play that it is one that really needs to be seen. So much of the comedy in the language is mirrored in the body and voice, and much is lost on paper. This is not true for all Shakespeare plays, but certainly "Dream", so it is not a good one to start with. Macbeth, too, to a lesser extent, but that is certainly enjoyable on paper. Anyway....

As far as editions, a heavily annotated one is a great idea. I find the Arden Shakespeare to be excellent, but the Norton's is the best in my view when it comes to annotations.

There is also "No Fear Shakespeare" which has on one side the original text and on the other a modernized version. My aversion to No Fear is that it imposes one interpretation on the texts, and I don't always agree with their interpretation - but I fully admit that it is useful for people who have difficulty with the language.

As for Spenser - I find The Faerie Queene a very difficult text, and this is coming from someone who has put a lot of focus into late Medieval/Renaissance lit. The language is actually easier, in my view, than Shakespeare's but the density and style of his poetry makes the book a challenge.

[Calidore]

Probably the best way to find a complete Shakespeare that works for you is to Google "best complete Shakespeare" and check out other people's pros and cons of the various editions. I myself have Bevington's.

My other suggestion would be to watch them first, as they are plays meant to be performed rather than read; this way you also get the benefit of the extensive research done by the actors on the characters and dialogue, which should lighten your load.

[Shea]

Probably the best way to find a complete Shakespeare that works for you is to Google "best complete Shakespeare" and check out other people's pros and cons of the various editions. I myself have Bevington's.

My other suggestion would be to watch them first, as they are plays meant to be performed rather than read; this way you also get the benefit of the extensive research done by the actors on the characters and dialogue, which should lighten your load.

I've got a Bevington's too and absolutely recommend it!

I also agree with Calidore about watching the plays (though I don't believe it's necessary to do so first), but do so with caution. Different actors and directors will have a different interpretation of the same play. I haven't seen a bad BBC version of the plays yet. I also highly recommend Kenneth Brannah's Hamlet though BBC is just as good. Mel Gibson's version of Hamlet is garbage in my opinion.

When I was in London, I went to the Globe Theatre. The play that was offered the night I was able to go was Pericles, Prince of Tyre. Though sitting for a Shakespearean play in the reconstructed theatre was definitely a treat, I was horribly disappointed with the production and only stayed maybe 30 more minutes after the intermission. I really expected more out of a British acting troupe.

[Charles Darnay]

Meanwhile, I haven't seen a BBC version of Shakespeare's plays that I liked. There's a certain absurdity to a lot of them that would work if they weren't trying to take themselves seriously.

I thought that the Zeffirelli Hamlet had some great parts to it. I don't agree with all of his interpretations, but I can't fault him for presenting them, except for the bedroom scene between mother and son - that was a bit of Hollywood appeasement.

But Branagh's version is far superior - if you are willing to put in the four hours.

[Shea]

Meanwhile, I haven't seen a BBC version of Shakespeare's plays that I liked. There's a certain absurdity to a lot of them that would work if they weren't trying to take themselves seriously.

To each his own.

[billl]

Branagh's "Much Ado About Nothing" is a lot of fun, and maybe one of my desert-island DVDs (if I get more than just 5 or 10...). I didn't find it nearly as fun to read (but maybe I would now--I haven't seen the film in years, so I've probably forgot some of the good parts). I should mention, though, that I probably didn't know exactly what they were saying more than just once or twice... But the acting is so inspired and joyful that, in those cases, I was able to "get" what was happening. And, again, reading the words didn't measure up to that experience of watching it. Usually, though, I've been quite happy reading the plays that I've read. "Much Ado..." is sort of a special case for me.

As far as editions go, I recommend Folger's mainly because it's the one I first used in high school, but probably all of the ones with annotations are going to be an enormous improvement over reading the plays with few or no annotations.

Also, I just scanned over the comments real quick, and if you are looking for a complete collection, then I'm sure you know what you want--but I think probably the better annotated editions (e.g. one full facing page of annotations including some illustrations matched up with each page of original text) aren't going to be "complete" anthologies. What keeps flashing through my head, actually, is the local used bookstore. It's pretty easy to find slightly used copies of many of the individual plays in fantastic editions especially designed for people (students...) who need help with the language and cultural background--and they're the perfect comfortable size for a train commute, an easy-chair, a picnic table, or the bed. And new paperbacks are usually pretty cheap too, if there's a certain one you are looking for.

Here's a link to the Folger's edition of Romeo & Juliet.

http://www.amazon.com/Romeo-Juliet-F...iet+folger%27s

If you click on the image of the book's cover (on the left) you can "LOOK INSIDE" and see if the annotations help with the first pages. Even-numbered pages would be on the left side while reading, and contain notes for the odd-numbered pages on the right (with line numbers indicating the location of the notes). I just looked this one over a bit, and the notes seemed to dance around some erotic innuendo in the part I read, I guess because it's potentially going to be used by high school kids... Or maybe because it's pretty obvious what's being said, and it didn't actually need the annotation!

Anyhow, maybe the editions other people are recommending would be better for you, but I'd definitely recommend the cheap paperback route. I'm pretty sure you could get a taste of a lot of the different editions by looking at the early pages on Amazon.com like this, and then you could see which one's annotations cover what you need covered best.

[stlukesguild]

Seriously, Shakespeare isn't that difficult. I think a great deal of the challenge for many comes down to an unfamiliarity with earlier forms of English and the conventions/vocabulary/syntax of the poetic structure. You will find this to be true whether you are reading Shakespeare... or Spenser, Sidney, Traherne, Herrick, Donne, Milton, Wyatt... or even the earlier English prose writers.

The suggestion that you watch a performance of the plays has its merits. It will allow you develop some notion as to how the language flows. On the other hand... every such performance is a given director's and the actor's interpretation... and in some ways may be far removed from you own take on the written text.

My suggestion would be that you continue to expose yourself to earlier English literature... poetry as well as prose. Shakespeare... and the others writers I named above... are worth the effort.

[bluosean]

Thanks so much you guys for all the recommendations. I spent about two hours on amazon looking at texts of Spenser's works. There seem to be some quite good editions of both the Faerie Queen and of his shorter poems. Unfortunately, the "look inside" option tends to show the table of contents, list of obscure words, and selections from the introductions and then skip to the bibliography without showing one page of the lay out of the verse and annotations! All in all it gives a pretty good idea of what the books are like though. And some of the introductions were very good. The books also have reviews and many of them are detailed and helpful. I haven't checked out Shakespeare yet, but I will check out the suggestions posted here tomorrow. If anyone has anymore personal favorite additions you would like to share please put them up. By the way, I will take into account the idea of watching the plays as well, but this would be secondary. My primary interest is to become acquainted with some of the texts.

[billl]

It's been a long time since I read one of Shakespeare's plays. Others here will certainly be more expert. However, my less sophisticated opinion might be of use anyhow, to someone who isn't yet expert.

In High School I read Romeo & Juliet and Julius Caesar. In my free time, I read Antony & Cleopatra. After graduating, over the next few years, I read a few others. Hamlet, MacBeth, and The Tempest are the ones I'm remembering now (and I read some of Much Ado...).

Julius Caesar was pretty cool--not too tricky, I liked the Roman setting. The Tempest was the one that probably stimulated my imagination the most--not a good starting point probably, but I can't help but mention how it stood out in relation to the others--I really liked it for that. Hamlet and MacBeth are of course classics. Yes, well. I've just realized what a ridiculous enterprise I've embarked upon here, trying to suggest good Shakespeare titles... It's pretty easy to do.

I guess I just want to say that Julius Caesar might be a good starting point, before moving on to Hamlet or MacBeth. Romeo & Juliet would probably be good as well, if that particular tale doesn't represent some enormous cliche for you. It's really pretty great, I think--and like Julius Caesar, it probably makes a better starting point than Hamlet or MacBeth. I figure you may as well save those for once you've gotten the groove down a bit for reading these things. But what the heck? If you're really interested in Hamlet or whatever, go for it.

Again, I'm no expert, and I'm not trying to say which one is best anyhow. That's just my thoughts on starting points (JC, maybe R&J), and I'm sure some people who know a bit more than I do, about these titles and others, are around here at Litnet, and are able to give even more accurate advice for a beginner.

[OrphanPip]

The best edition of the Faerie Queen is the annotated Longman, it's primarily a scholarly edition. However, it is printed in comfortably large print, and every stanza is annotated at the bottom of the page, making it easy to check unfamiliar allusions while you read. The only negative is that the edition is quite large so it's not a comfortable book to carry around for leisurely reading.

Edit: I have the Yale edition of Spenser's complete "short" poetic works, but I wouldn't call it anything other than functional.

[bluosean]

Now that you mention it, in high school we read Julius Caesar and I did read some of The Tempest on my own. I had forgot until you reminded me. With The Tempest especially though I missed a lot. I don't even know what the story is about (I can look forward to a new story). Romeo and Juliet, of course, although I have not read, I know the story very well. Same with Hamlet. Unfortunately, although I may not know the details of the story, I know what happens in the end. I remember Julius Caesar fairly well, but I also remember enjoying it, and it has been a long time since I have read it, so JC and Tempest it is. Thank you for the suggestions billl! I will start there. Perhaps I will look for the paperbacks with notes online. I do like the idea, since then I can carry them around.

By the way, I'll look for editions that gloss the sex rather than glossing over it. That's part of the fun. I've seen some of Shakespeare's sexual passages. I had fun reading them. Many scholars seem to see labia or phallic something in in every flower and branch. Probably, in many of these places the author did not intend it. I'm not down with that. But the ones that are for real, yea, I'd like to be in on the sexual joke.

OrphanPip, do you care to elaborate on functional? That was one of the books that I was thinking about getting (the Yale edition).

[OrphanPip]

OrphanPip, do you care to elaborate on functional? That was one of the books that I was thinking about getting (the Yale edition).

The notes are limited largely to glosses of unfamiliar words, but the print makes for comfortable reading. I wouldn't call it an excellent edition, it lacks much of the sort of contextual information that could help with reading (especially with the unfamiliar Renaissance poetic genres Spenser writes in), like the kind of stuff you'd find in a Norton. That being said, it is convenient to have all of Spenser's non-Faerie Queene poetic works collected in one book, it's quite bulky though. The Sheapheardes Calendar, Amoretti and Epithalamion, and Prothalamion are probably the only parts you would ever want to read (only Spenser scholars would read the other stuff too attentively), so if you can find a smaller collection with just the major works it might be a better buy. You essentially get 800 pages of Spenser poetry in this book, but only 250 pages of it are important to read.

[bluosean]

Great! Thank you!

[Seasider]

There is a useful website called shakespeare-online.com . It has lots of fascinating sidelines about S and his works, life etc. I dont know where you are and if you can get it but anything like Study Guide to Shakespeare's plays might be helpful.
I just found out from it that Queen Elizabeth 1 translated Boethius' Consolations of Philosophy