Horatio

[Virgil]

That sounds like a great idea, Virg. If we did this, could I be hideously selfish and request one of the earlier histories or comedies early in the new year? That's what I'll be teaching and it would be super to have a place to discuss one of the plays my students will be reading. If people here have strong feelings about reading a particular play though, I'll be glad to discuss any of the plays.

No problem, Petrarch. How about we start in December with a classic and by mid January pick one that you will need? Is that OK. We need to establish rules on how to pick a play. I'm trying to wait until Janine and Arlene see this so we can get their thoughts into the mix. Just my management style. I'm a consensus builder rather than dictator. Just some insight into my work personality.

[Janine]

I like the idea , Virgil. Smart thinking!

I think one act per week isn't too rigorous. In five weeks we will have completed a play and we could spend another week for further discussion. That's six weeks per play, or if that is still too tough we could go one play every two months. I'm not sure how we would select the play. Any suggestions?

I could do one act per week. We could try it and if it gets too demanding we could do the play in two months (after all we have to leave time to post, and first to think). Someone commented to leave out the histories. I would hate to see that done. I liked those emensely. True it is better to read them in order, but I read a few out of order ,and they were just as good, then went back later and read the ones that proceeded them in time-span. Most of the histories are tragedies, too. Hard to draw a definite line in Shakespeare and some of the comedies also have tragic, sad and profound elements. I sometimes hate the way the plays are categorized. I never saw the "Merchant of Venice" as a comedy, but that is usually the way it is listed....strange.

[Janine]

Well, December is going to be hectic, with holidays approaching, but if you think we should start, then I suppose I can swing it. I would rather start in January. Just my personal thought on the matter.

[Petrarch's Love]

No problem, Petrarch. How about we start in December with a classic and by mid January pick one that you will need? Is that OK. We need to establish rules on how to pick a play. I'm trying to wait until Janine and Arlene see this so we can get their thoughts into the mix. Just my management style. I'm a consensus builder rather than dictator. Just some insight into my work personality.

Sounds good to me. I'm up for anything, and I've read all the plays through at least once. I think most of the plays we'll be reading for the class are fairly well known (Henry IV parts 1&2, Richard II, Midsummer, Twelfth Night, Much Ado) though I'm not sure of the final list quite yet, since the professor I'm assisting for is the one defining the syllabus for the class. I think he might have said something about Troilus and Cressida too. I've been doing some research work on the Tempest lately too, so if anyone wanted to go through that one I'd be more than game.

[Janine]

Hey, what happened to "Henry V"? "Henry V" is one of my all time favorite plays! Richard III is great, too!

[Petrarch's Love]

I think that we should mix up comedies, tragedies and histories as much as possible. Or perhaps eliminate the histories entirely - I'd always planned on reading those consecutively.

Just to clarify, Shoutgrace, did you want to read the histories consecutively as written or in order of the reign of the kings? I'm guessing you mean the latter. Frankly, I wouldn't start reading the histories with King John anyway. I tried that myself, and it dampened my desire to read more of the histories (not that it's a terrrible play, but I don't think it's a great introduction to the histories, and certainly isn't the most compelling of them). I would at least skip to Richard II. You won't really be missing any pertinent background by skipping John, since there's quite a large chronological gap between him and Richard II. That's just my two cents though.

[Janine]

I agree with that - the histories; RII is a good starting point....lots of action; the two Henry's are great and Henry V is superb. Then the others that follow make sense.

[Petrarch's Love]

Hey, what happened to "Henry V"? "Henry V" is one of my all time favorite plays! Richard III is great, too!

The class we're teaching is Shakespeare I, so I think we're doing plays written earlier in Shakespeare's career and moving through to later ones in Shakespeare II and III. Also, I'm assuming the prof's idea is to leave the students with a cliffhanger by gettting them through Henry IV 1&2, and then getting them to sign up for Shakespeare II in Spring quarter to read Henry V and so on. Naturally we could read any play we want here on Lit. Net. I love Henry V too (though if others here haven't read the Henry IV plays, it really makes sense to start with them, since you miss alot of the impact with the way certain characters transform in Henry V if you haven't read the earlier plays).

[Janine]

P - ok, I agree with that. Did Shakespeare write the histories out of order then concerning the king's reigns? I have to go out now, so hold that thought....or answer and I will reply later. Sounds like a good idea the "cliff- hanger!" They will want to read Henry V for certain and RIII.

[Virgil]

Yes the histories were not written in order.

[Petrarch's Love]

There's some disagreement as to the exact chronology of the plays, but this link gives a general chronology that I think scholars would agree with for the most part: http://www.shakespeare-online.com/ke...playchron.html
Roughly speaking the plays up to about Much Ado or Henry V are considered the earlier half of his work, and those after, the later half (though there's no fast rule here). Actually, it occured to me that Richard III is in fact one of the very early plays, so I wonder if we will be doing it in this class after all, or if this prof. is cutting it out or prefers to do the histories according to historical chronology (probably the way I would be inclined to teach them were I doing the planning portion of the course). I'll have to ask him.

[Janine]

Another question....or maybe two actually:
First about Shakespeare, I think I had read online about the history plays and the chronology of them being out of order of rule. Also, I have read that some think certain of the history plays were not really written by Shakespeare at all. I think I read Henry VIII was suspect. Does anyone know anything about this? There is an early play of the histories - might have been King John or James, and I remember feeling really bored, and that it did not seem as though the Bard had written it, seemed lack-lustre to me. I read it after I had read the others such as the Henry's and the Richards, which I thought had so much scope.
Second question: If we are going to do a play a month should a new thread be started to that effect? ...since this thread is "Horatio". If a new one was started more people might join in....that would be great.

[Virgil]

Another question....or maybe two actually:
First about Shakespeare, I think I had read online about the history plays and the chronology of them being out of order of rule. Also, I have read that some think certain of the history plays were not really written by Shakespeare at all. I think I read Henry VIII was suspect. Does anyone know anything about this?

Henry VIII is either Shakespeare's last or second to last of his plays. Those last two plays were certainly written in collaboration with I think another playwright named John Fletcher. Too lazy to look it up right now.

There is an early play of the histories - might have been King John or James, and I remember feeling really bored, and that it did not seem as though the Bard had written it, seemed lack-lustre to me. I read it after I had read the others such as the Henry's and the Richards, which I thought had so much scope.

You must mean King John. I don't think there is a King James play. I have never read King John, nor the other histories which some consider boring Henry VI parts I, II, and III. Shakespeare wrote the Henry VI series before the Henry IV and V series.

Second question: If we are going to do a play a month should a new thread be started to that effect? ...since this thread is "Horatio". If a new one was started more people might join in....that would be great

I sent a message to Admin and the moderators on how to best set this up. The have not gotten back to me yet.

[Janine]

Virgil, Thanks for the information. I read John, Henry IV, V, VI and both Richards, II and III. I think I did know that Henry VI was written before the others....strange. I found the Henry VI's less appealing and somewhat boring as well. The middle ones are the best. I read them not too long ago so I can pretty well recall them to mind. I like English history, but I am aware that Shakespeare took many liberties with the writing of it. Much is exaggerated.

Glad you contacted the moderators about how to go about the subject of the play discussions. That was smart thinking!

I am going to try now to go watch Hamlet downstairs on the Sony player. I hope it works ok. I will let you know. I am fired up to see it tonight. Thanks!!!

[Virgil]

Virgil, Thanks for the information. I read John, Henry IV, V, VI and both Richards, II and III. I think I did know that Henry VI was written before the others....strange. I found the Henry VI's less appealing and somewhat boring as well. The middle ones are the best. I read them not too long ago so I can pretty well recall them to mind. I like English history, but I am aware that Shakespeare took many liberties with the writing of it. Much is exaggerated.

Glad you contacted the moderators about how to go about the subject of the play discussions. That was smart thinking!

I am going to try now to go watch Hamlet downstairs on the Sony player. I hope it works ok. I will let you know. I am fired up to see it tonight. Thanks!!!

Enjoy it!......I hope it works too. I would be embarressed if it didn't.