Shakespeare Discussions

[xman]

... reading them in their chronological order as well so that we will be able to see how Shakespeare has developed over the years as a playwright.

Except the Histories. Henry VI pts 1, 2 & 3 and Richard III were earliest in his career. It looks like the approach to these has been to keep them in the Folio order. No History has been read as of this posting so if we really want to keep the progression of the writer as a base those should be the first Histories read, but I'm easy.

X

P.S. I see nothing in this thread explaining why the Histories are out of order. Can anyone explain this? Or Why Macbeth is at the end of the list.

[Janine]

I do agree with Xman on this one - sequence. I thought the histories were the first plays written by Shakespeare, also. So far I have not been happy with the order of the plays, because I don't think the ones choosen would entice someone to read Shakespeare, nor do I think that they are a good example of his works. If someone was not familar with Shakespeare I would think these first two plays may discourage them from reading Shakespeare. But I am easy, too, so I am just waiting for a play that will interest me. I do not like the one currently being discussed. "Taming of the Shrew" was ok, but by far not my favorite Shakespeare play. However, "Titus A" is too violent and bloody; some people believe that Shakespeare did not even write it. Personally I can't stomach this play. I am of the same belief that the Bard did not write it; I read that he may have revised it, but it was basically not his writing. Well, I just wanted to air out my views and hope I did not offend anyone in anyway.

[Scheherazade]

When we first developed this idea, following the suggests of our members, we were hoping to read the plays in their chronological order (http://www.online-literature.com/for....php?t=20488); however, again following the suggestions and wishes of our members (as Virgil's post above points out), later on it was agreed that First Folio order should be followed (even though for Comedies and Tragedies we wanted to rearrange the plays according to their chronological order).

Petrarch in a PM outlined a more interesting sequence for reading the plays. She thinks by going with the first folio order while alternating between comedy, tragedy, and history would make readings more stimulating. Here's her suggestion:

I do not like the one currently being discussed. "Taming of the Shrew" was ok, but by far not my favorite Shakespeare play. However, "Titus A" is too violent and bloody; some people believe that Shakespeare did not even write it.

Janine,

If I remember correctly, you were a member of the Forum when this idea was conceived. I really wish that you had sounded your concerns about the order of the plays at the time it was discussed/determined.

I am sorry that the plays that have been discussed at the moment are not to your liking; however, as you might appreciate as well, we cannot simply read the popular ones only (also, if we go by order of popularity, which is a hard thing to determine in itself, later on, when we reach to 'not-so-popular-ones', there wouldn't be anyone reading/discussing them). As it is always the case with the Book Club readings, none of us is under any obligation to take part in all the readings and we can all skip the ones which are not appealing to us.

It is unfortunate that we are unable to come up with an order and method to please every and each one of us (especially considering that very few of the original members who were keen on the idea at the time are actively involved at the moment). Yet, personally speaking, I am glad to be able to read and discuss these plays with everyone on here regardless of the order and whatnot.

I would like to think that this issue has been settled and we can now get on with reading of the plays.

[Janine]

When we first developed this idea, following the suggests of our members, we were hoping to read the plays in their chronological order (http://www.online-literature.com/for....php?t=20488); however, again following the suggestions and wishes of our members (as Virgil's post above points out), later on it was agreed that First Folio order should be followed (even though for Comedies and Tragedies we wanted to rearrange the plays according to their chronological order).

Janine,

If I remember correctly, you were a member of the Forum when this idea was conceived. I really wish that you had sounded your concerns about the order of the plays at the time it was discussed/determined.

I am sorry that the plays that have been discussed at the moment are not to your liking; however, as you might appreciate as well, we cannot simply read the popular ones only (also, if we go by order of popularity, which is a hard thing to determine in itself, later on, when we reach to 'not-so-popular-ones', there wouldn't be anyone reading/discussing them). As it is always the case with the Book Club readings, none of us is under any obligation to take part in all the readings and we can all skip the ones which are not appealing to us.

It is unfortunate that we are unable to come up with an order and method to please every and each one of us (especially considering that very few of the original members who were keen on the idea at the time are actively involved at the moment). Yet, personally speaking, I am glad to be able to read and discuss these plays with everyone on here regardless of the order and whatnot.

I would like to think that this issue has been settled and we can now get on with reading of the plays.

Scher, I was just voicing my opinion on the fact that I really don't like this current Shakespeare play, "Titus A", which has been debated as to whether it was actually written by Shakespeare. I honestly could say I hate the play and the blandant and huge dose of bloodshed entailed in it and oddly enough I am a person whose favorite Shakespeare plays are "Hamlet", "Lear", "Richard III", "Henry V", and "Othello"...all of which have quite a bit of violence in them. I have been anxious to participate in the Shakespeare discussion. I just could not convince myself I wished to read this play, let alone discuss it. I feel badly once again that I won't be participating, because I love the Shakespeare discussion.
Yes, I was an original part of the organising of the group, or at least suggesting, it and agreeing with the sequence you devised. I really did not see any choice at the time, but to accept your lineup. I was very enthused at the time we approached you about the thread, but I am sorry to say, I have lost some enthusiasm, as it appears several others, also, have from that original group; but I cannot speak for them, only myself. Perhaps they are like me, waiting for the play that will be of interest to them. Yes, I know that I can pick and choose at will and that is fine. I plan to do so.
It makes no difference really, I am actively involved in other threads and other discussions at present and hope to be in the "Ethan Frome" discussion group; I am nearly finished reading the book and hope to write more about it soon. Also, Virgil and I started an interesting thread on D.H.Lawrence short stories, that we are keeping quite lively and active. We are hoping for more participants.
I do have a question about the Histories. In the list I saw that you had posted online in the thread about the plays' chronological order, as to original folio, it seems that "Henry VI", (all the parts) will be first. It seems in the link in this posting, the first history play would be "King John". I am confused as to which order the history plays will be presented. Seems King John would be the logical first play and then Richard II, Henry IV and so forth, but maybe I am wrong and read your link incorrectly. I was always hoping the plays would follow in order of the historic events. I makes more sense that way to read them. It just seems the two lists I have read contradict each other, but again I might be wrong about that.
I realise that you did the work to come up with this list and it took you much time to organise. My only concern is that I would hope to see more participants in the upcoming discussions. I did not bank on only the popular plays being in the lineup to study, not at all. I hoped for many I had not read yet. It is just, in my opinion, that so far these plays are not good examples of Shakespeare's best and if I were suggesting Shakespeare to the youth these would not be the ones I would suggest representative of Shakespeare's work. Can you see my point? Yes, I do regret, I did not voice this opinion of mine when you were organising the list to begin with. Sorry about that - it was the holiday season and I was quite busy.

[xman]

... "Titus A" is too violent and bloody; some people believe that Shakespeare did not even write it. Personally I can't stomach this play. I am of the same belief that the Bard did not write it; I read that he may have revised it, but it was basically not his writing.

Let me assure you that TA shows all the signs of being an original work by Shakespeare alone. The stylistic and vocabulary markers unique to Shakespeare are all present and suggestions that any other hand was involved at any level are purely conjectural. I think people are inclined to feel that way because they find it a distasteful piece. A piece which was actually extremely popular in its day if Phillip Henslowe's Diary is any indication.

X

[Janine]

Hi xman, Thanks for the explaination. What you say may be true and it may be your ardent opinion; that is fine. What my book says or suggests is that Shakespeare may have revised TA, or have been involved, but basically scholars do not feel he was responsible for this particular play...especially in his early days of writing. I will try to do more research on it online and get back to you.
For now though, I am recovering from a very bad virus which has zapped my energy, and I felt I could not handle such a heavy-handed play. I very much like other plays of Shakespeare's that deal with killing and blood, namely Lear, Richard III and Othello, Hamlet, but I thought TA would deliver an especially heavy dose of violence and be disturbing to me at this particular time. I just simply wish to pass on this play; I will probably start reading the next one we will study, which I hope to be involved in. It is no big deal really. I am involved in other threads and disgussions presently - enough to keep me quite busy and happy. I probably should not have mentioned my dislike of this play, but I did and I can't really take that opinion back. I think all are entitled to their opinion.

[islandclimber]

when is this discussion group going to revive... anyone want to read and discuss shakespeare??? please.............

[Virgil]

when is this discussion group going to revive... anyone want to read and discuss shakespeare??? please.............

Yeah, I have seen Scher recently. I asked her if we could revive it, with perhaps instead of a play per month stretching it out further. I forget what the next play on her list is.

[Scheherazade]

We will be reviving the Shakespeare discussion group. We actually have never read a play a month (one play every two months was the original plan). However, if it seems like an ambitious schedule, we can reduce it to "one play every three months".

I am hoping to get things running by April again - if there is enough interest, of course.

[Granny5]

I've not read a lot of Shakespeare, just the usual stuff required in high school, but maybe it's time for me to learn something new. Three months should be long enough for even me to read a play.

[Virgil]

We will be reviving the Shakespeare discussion group. We actually have never read a play a month (one play every two months was the original plan). However, if it seems like an ambitious schedule, we can reduce it to "one play every three months".

I am hoping to get things running by April again - if there is enough interest, of course.

Yay!!! I think Lady Wentworth was interested and I know Janine is. Petrarch always tries to contribute and Granny just volenteered. Perhaps three months per play is best. Unless everyone else thinks it's too slow. It only only takes a few days to read a play, but I'm just caught up in a few other readings, and of course real life.

[LadyWentworth]

Plays are really nothing to me. I can generally read a play in a day. Depending on anything that might be going on in my life, it might take me up to 3 days. A day is generally what it takes me, though.

Of course, if we would be reading a play over 3 months, that would actually make it easier in case I have other stuff going on that keeps me from reading anything at all. So, whatever is decided, though, I am OK with.

[Abraxas]

I'm definitely interested! If you can't go and see the plays or speak about them to other people, reading Shakespeare on your own can be a little frustrating...

[Quark]

I'd help out if the thread got restarted. Is this still scheduled for April? Which play would we do first?

[Veho]

I didn't want to make a new thread for this so I'm asking here. I'm investing in a complete works of Shakespeare and I want to know is 'The RSC Shakespeare: The Complete Works' the best edition?