Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 20 of 20

Thread: Which Complete Shakespeare Edition to Get?

  1. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by xman View Post
    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.

  2. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    99
    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.

  3. #18
    Shakespearean xman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Lotus Land
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir777 View Post
    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!

    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.
    He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot. ~ Douglas Adams

  4. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by xman View Post
    Well done, sir!

    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.

  5. #20
    Shakespearean xman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Lotus Land
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir777 View Post
    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.
    He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot. ~ Douglas Adams

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Wanted Shakespeare: Dead Or Alive
    By GrayFoxDown in forum Is Shakespeare Dead?
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-07-2008, 02:02 PM
  2. Contrast between Antonio and shaylock, Jessica and Portia
    By cati... in forum Merchant of Venice
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-09-2007, 09:43 AM
  3. Empty Spaces
    By akfarrar in forum Shakespeare, William
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-24-2006, 02:30 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •