What is THE definitive version of Shakespeare's complete works?
and what are the definitive commentaries on him?
I picked up an old copy when I first started going to /lit/ from my local charity shop but the paper is incredibly thin and the text is tiny. Likewise I have Kermode's Shakespeare, Spenser, Donne but I've yet to read Spenser and would like to read more Shakespeare before I read it.
>>7396630
I have the nelson doubleday 2 volume set, it's complete and has minimal to no commentary, just the texts themselves. I use Folger library paperbacks for annotation.
Norton Critical Editions dont seem to have an edition of Shakespeare's Complete Works - any good alternatives?
>>7396630
>What is THE definitive version of Shakespeare's complete works?
the plays performed under his direction by the King's Men, of course. everything else is just a faded image
modern library editions are swank as fuck
>>7396630
I'm surprised this thread has been up all day without detonating the shitbomb this topic always ignites IRL when it comes up.
The tired old tweed jacket, patched elbow, Harold Bloom is not the devil answer is either the Riverside, or the Oxford.
The Oxford, 2nd (current) edition has two texts never before included, as its sole argument for definitive status.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0199267170/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1/185-9853716-0977060?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_r=05FT9XA4TC7XBDQP9DCH&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=1944687742&pf_rd_i=0321886518
It suffers from the typical Bongistan syndrome of presumptive uncritical adoration for each and every Deified syllable, and the editorial attitude toward the national GOD OF LITERATURE FOR ALL THE UNIVERSE comes across just like that.
Similarly the only reason tenured faculty keep the Riverside alive is because it was the one they were forced to buy in the 70s, and they think nothing new or interesting could possibly have been thought by anyone since then, since they haven't thought it.
http://www.amazon.com/Riverside-Shakespeare-2nd-William/dp/0395754909/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1448671219&sr=1-1&keywords=riverside+shakespeare
The one I would buy if I were back there at that age is the current edition of the real best one ever which is this one:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Complete-Works-Shakespeare-Edition/dp/0321886518
>>7396630
This badboy, the fattest book I own. Also, the intros are pretty decent.
Riverside Shakespeare is good.
>>7399063
I said the Bevington is the best.
riverside /thread
It's Arden, not really a contest.
That said, complete works are kinda shitty and hard to read. I prefer getting copies of individual plays.
>>7399340
The latest edition of the Arden is ruined. See the reviews:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Arden-Shakespeare-Complete-Works/dp/1408152010
>>7399292
Are you literally wearing a tweed jacket with elbow patches?
>>7396630
The most thorough single-volume edition is the Norton Shakespeare (just out in a third edition), but it's a pretty unwieldy tome and is only suitable for desktop use.
The best way to go is individual editions from Cambridge, Oxford, Arden, and Norton. They vary according to the individual editor, so pick and choose according to your preference.
There's no definitive commentary, but the Norton Critical Editions include a selection of representative and influential criticism, from early to current material. Read all that stuff for the major plays and you'll have good grounding.
Stephen Greenblatt's Will in the World is a nice general intro to Shakespeare's life and context, with plenty of connection made to his works. The intros in the single-volume Norton Shakespeare are thorough for background.
There are plenty of single-volume overviews of Shakespeare's works, but these are usually not worth the effort. Terry Eagleton's is entertaining. You're probably better off just reading an individual play and then finding a bunch of interesting individual responses to the play.
