Questo sito utilizza i cookies per fornire i nostri servizi, per migliorare le prestazioni, per analisi, e (per gli utenti che accedono senza fare login) per la pubblicità. Usando LibraryThing confermi di aver letto e capito le nostre condizioni di servizio e la politica sulla privacy. Il tuo uso del sito e dei servizi è soggetto a tali politiche e condizioni.
Risultati da Google Ricerca Libri
Fai clic su di un'immagine per andare a Google Ricerca Libri.
The first edition in over 100 years of the fascinatingly varied body of plays that has become known as "The Shakespeare Apocrypha". Among the highlights are the whole text of Sir Thomas More, which includes the only scene from any play to survive in Shakespeare's own handwriting; the history play Edward III, including a superb seduction scene by Shakespeare; and the domestic murder tragedy Arden of Faversham, in which Shakespeare's hand has been detected by recent computer-assisted analysis. This is also the first ever Shakespeare edition to include the 1602 edition of Thomas Kyd's pioneering The Spanish Tragedy, with "additions" that the latest research attributes to Shakespeare. Included is a comprehensive account of the authorship and attribution of each play.… (altro)
Iscriviti per consentire a LibraryThing di scoprire se ti piacerà questo libro.
▾Conversazioni (Su link)
Attualmente non vi sono conversazioni su questo libro.
▾Recensioni di utenti
I'm so very glad to have this as part of my collection. I adore the layout and aims of Bate & Rasmussen's RSC Complete Works, even if I ultimately believe the more all-encompassing scholarship of the Ardens is the pinnacle in Shakespearean research. But every home should have a complete works, and the RSC is top-notch.
Of course, a "Collaborative Works" is always going to be divisive among reviewers, and my own mind is both rapturous and doubtful about this edition. The plays herein are freshly edited and lovingly presented, with a vast amount of detail about the authorship question, stylistic analysis, recent productions, and an overall view of Elizabethan and Jacobean drama. (One of the most important changes in scholarship in the last 50 years is a renewed willingness to see Shakespeare as a creative working in an active theatre industry, rather than some gloomy tower-bound "author" creating plays.) While I'm academically conservative, it is true that the academic establishment has a tendency to grow defensive against change, and I welcome the editors keeping Shakespearean scholarship on its toes. Some of the plays here almost undoubtedly have the Bard's blood running through them, and it's great to see them being revived.
If I have any issues, it's really only that there could have been MORE. The editors openly admit that "The London Prodigal" is very probably not by Shakespeare. I'm completely fine with that. As they point out time and time again, this notion that plays by Shakespeare are instantly valid for our day and age while others are simply archaic is absurd. These plays are vibrant and enjoyable, as well as reminders of the great variety and versatility of the theatre of an entire age. So I suppose my shame is, after reading the introduction and reasons why some plays were omitted... well, why not include a few more? Make this a brand new "Works", to bring so many plays back into people's homes?
Anyhow, that's a slightly ambitious point. I'm very happy to have this. Bate & Rasmussen may have drawn the net too wide in search of Shakespeare (even if I think it is too narrow overall) but it's surely better to encompass all of Shakespeare plus some assortments, than to omit some of his words simply out of some sense of tradition? ( )
The first edition in over 100 years of the fascinatingly varied body of plays that has become known as "The Shakespeare Apocrypha". Among the highlights are the whole text of Sir Thomas More, which includes the only scene from any play to survive in Shakespeare's own handwriting; the history play Edward III, including a superb seduction scene by Shakespeare; and the domestic murder tragedy Arden of Faversham, in which Shakespeare's hand has been detected by recent computer-assisted analysis. This is also the first ever Shakespeare edition to include the 1602 edition of Thomas Kyd's pioneering The Spanish Tragedy, with "additions" that the latest research attributes to Shakespeare. Included is a comprehensive account of the authorship and attribution of each play.
Google Books — Sto caricando le informazioni...
(5)
2
Of course, a "Collaborative Works" is always going to be divisive among reviewers, and my own mind is both rapturous and doubtful about this edition. The plays herein are freshly edited and lovingly presented, with a vast amount of detail about the authorship question, stylistic analysis, recent productions, and an overall view of Elizabethan and Jacobean drama. (One of the most important changes in scholarship in the last 50 years is a renewed willingness to see Shakespeare as a creative working in an active theatre industry, rather than some gloomy tower-bound "author" creating plays.) While I'm academically conservative, it is true that the academic establishment has a tendency to grow defensive against change, and I welcome the editors keeping Shakespearean scholarship on its toes. Some of the plays here almost undoubtedly have the Bard's blood running through them, and it's great to see them being revived.
If I have any issues, it's really only that there could have been MORE. The editors openly admit that "The London Prodigal" is very probably not by Shakespeare. I'm completely fine with that. As they point out time and time again, this notion that plays by Shakespeare are instantly valid for our day and age while others are simply archaic is absurd. These plays are vibrant and enjoyable, as well as reminders of the great variety and versatility of the theatre of an entire age. So I suppose my shame is, after reading the introduction and reasons why some plays were omitted... well, why not include a few more? Make this a brand new "Works", to bring so many plays back into people's homes?
Anyhow, that's a slightly ambitious point. I'm very happy to have this. Bate & Rasmussen may have drawn the net too wide in search of Shakespeare (even if I think it is too narrow overall) but it's surely better to encompass all of Shakespeare plus some assortments, than to omit some of his words simply out of some sense of tradition? (