Scan barcode
juushika's review against another edition
2.0
This is relatively unremarkable. The interactions between King Edward and the Countess of Salisbury are unsettling and intense (and I swear this was my favorite part even before I read theories about which sections Shakespeare authored); in the second half, the best is Prince Edward's dynamic, substantial character arc. But the two halves are disconnected and, however impressive it may be to condense such a long time period into a single sequence, the series of battles is routine and uninspired. Like Henry VI Part 1: there are seeds of potential, but it lacks the robust, cogent meeting of themes/language/characters which makes Shakespeare's better plays successful.
daisymai's review against another edition
1.0
Was meant to finish this for uni; however, it was so dull that I couldn’t bring myself to finish it. Luckily I know I’m not writing an essay on it because it was so painful to get even half way through.
meadforddude's review against another edition
5.0
At first, I wasn't really enjoying this all that much, and was confused about why King Edward III was so besotted by this one woman, only for him to ultimately walk it back late in the 2nd Act. It was just strange, although undeniably well-written. But this does play itself out when it's obliquely referenced in dialogue by King Edward III later in the play as a means of establishing his strength of character. Do I think they drive the point home a bit harder than necessary? Maybe.
Shakespeare's authorship of this play seems to have been - at best - partial, but it's easy to see why scholarship increasingly aims to place it within his canon. It's a great fucking play, and even if Shakespeare's involvement is next-to-nothing, it's worth putting this on more peoples' radars. How many people are going to read something so ancient if it doesn't have the pedigree of someone as world-renowned as Shakespeare to recommend it?
And this also feels in some ways like an evolution of Shakespeare's style. Or an evolution of theatrical presentation of the era, I suppose. Scenes distend from 600+ lines down to less than 15 over the course of this play, but the glimpses we get feel more pointed and specific than the occasionally haphazard iris-in effect occasionally implemented in the Henry VI plays (primarily Part I). And the lengthy scenes of dialogue (frequently launching into outright soliloquy) early on serve to establish Edward III's character much the same way the extended asides of Richard III served to establish his. A case of Shakespeare (and others) placing emphasis on the characters in the play as complement to the overarching narrative structure.
This is my first time reading one of the Arden Shakespeare editions, and I think I may end up collecting hard copies of these at some point. First of all, they've published some of the more "Apocryphal" works such as this, "Sir Thomas More," and "Double Falsehood" (AKA "Cardenio"), where the Folger Shakespeare Library primarily plays the hits, but they also provide a colossal amount of historical and aesthetic research as a lead-in to the play itself. The Folger editions repeat the same handful of contextualizing passages (Theater in the time of Shakespeare; Shakespeare's Life; History of the Quartos; etc.), and only offer a handful of play-specific notes in advance.
Where I'd argue the Folger editions *DO* stand out is in their incorporations of climactic essays from Shakespearean scholars, and in the way they summarize the critical writings on the plays at the end. So, Arden's editions are better for the history of the play (and of the material chronicled therein), but Folger's are better for the critical appraisals and interpretations of the plays.
Either way, Arden's the only one of the two to issue this particular title (so far). Hopefully Folger follows suit at some point.
Shakespeare's authorship of this play seems to have been - at best - partial, but it's easy to see why scholarship increasingly aims to place it within his canon. It's a great fucking play, and even if Shakespeare's involvement is next-to-nothing, it's worth putting this on more peoples' radars. How many people are going to read something so ancient if it doesn't have the pedigree of someone as world-renowned as Shakespeare to recommend it?
And this also feels in some ways like an evolution of Shakespeare's style. Or an evolution of theatrical presentation of the era, I suppose. Scenes distend from 600+ lines down to less than 15 over the course of this play, but the glimpses we get feel more pointed and specific than the occasionally haphazard iris-in effect occasionally implemented in the Henry VI plays (primarily Part I). And the lengthy scenes of dialogue (frequently launching into outright soliloquy) early on serve to establish Edward III's character much the same way the extended asides of Richard III served to establish his. A case of Shakespeare (and others) placing emphasis on the characters in the play as complement to the overarching narrative structure.
This is my first time reading one of the Arden Shakespeare editions, and I think I may end up collecting hard copies of these at some point. First of all, they've published some of the more "Apocryphal" works such as this, "Sir Thomas More," and "Double Falsehood" (AKA "Cardenio"), where the Folger Shakespeare Library primarily plays the hits, but they also provide a colossal amount of historical and aesthetic research as a lead-in to the play itself. The Folger editions repeat the same handful of contextualizing passages (Theater in the time of Shakespeare; Shakespeare's Life; History of the Quartos; etc.), and only offer a handful of play-specific notes in advance.
Where I'd argue the Folger editions *DO* stand out is in their incorporations of climactic essays from Shakespearean scholars, and in the way they summarize the critical writings on the plays at the end. So, Arden's editions are better for the history of the play (and of the material chronicled therein), but Folger's are better for the critical appraisals and interpretations of the plays.
Either way, Arden's the only one of the two to issue this particular title (so far). Hopefully Folger follows suit at some point.
sixforgold's review against another edition
challenging
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
2.0
oldswampy's review against another edition
4.0
Excellent edition of this play. Some of the notes are printed in fonts so small they're difficult to read, and as often happens in editions of Shakespeare's works, the notes sometimes state what seems obvious to an educated reader. The introduction is a bit tedious -- well over 100 pages before you get to the actual script -- but it is all relevant information. This would be a 4.5-star book if Goodreads would get with the program and allow half-star ratings... I know I'm far from the first to suggest this.
baronet_coins's review against another edition
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0
jazrphillips's review
adventurous
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.75
A niche gem. However, I do think it's funny that Shakespeare used the exact same plot twist at least 4 times and still expected the audience to be surprised by it
cs4_0reads's review against another edition
informative
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
leesmyth's review against another edition
4.0
I was very pleasantly surprised by this one, given its uncertain canonical status. (Apparently, Shakespeare is now thought to have written some sections of it.)
It's a bit of proto-Henry V in many of its plot elements, and also has both some misunderstood prophecies and several points where masts or spears of an army are momentarily taken for trees (lending a sort of proto-Macbeth feel).
One recurring theme is oath-keeping, often in the face of a royal command ordering and purporting to 'absolve' the oath-breaking in advance.
* We first see this in King Edward's attempt on the virtue of the Countess of Salisbury. She declines to break their respective marriage oaths, and eventually shames Edward into renouncing the project entirely. (But not before Edward has tricked her father into promising to try persuade her to say yes. Her father is horrified, of course, but honors his promise nonetheless in a wonderful dialogue.)
* We also see this in the French prisoner Villiers, who is released strictly on his promise to secure a safe-conduct for his captors from the Dauphin, and to return to his erstwhile captors if he is unsuccessful. Quite understandably, the Dauphin thinks this is crazy and that Villiers has no obligation to keep that promise. (Cf JRRT's escape of the prisoner vs flight of the deserter argument.) But Villiers sticks to his guns, and the Dauphin relents and provides the passport specifically so Villiers won't return empty-handed to his erstwhile captors and voluntarily re-enter captivity.
* And then the King of France tries to order the Dauphin to break his promise of safe-conduct, on the theory that it was ultra vires and countermanded. Here, too, the King ultimately relents and allows the Dauphin to honor his promise.
It's a bit of proto-Henry V in many of its plot elements, and also has both some misunderstood prophecies and several points where masts or spears of an army are momentarily taken for trees (lending a sort of proto-Macbeth feel).
One recurring theme is oath-keeping, often in the face of a royal command ordering and purporting to 'absolve' the oath-breaking in advance.
* We first see this in King Edward's attempt on the virtue of the Countess of Salisbury. She declines to break their respective marriage oaths, and eventually shames Edward into renouncing the project entirely. (But not before Edward has tricked her father into promising to try persuade her to say yes. Her father is horrified, of course, but honors his promise nonetheless in a wonderful dialogue.)
* We also see this in the French prisoner Villiers, who is released strictly on his promise to secure a safe-conduct for his captors from the Dauphin, and to return to his erstwhile captors if he is unsuccessful. Quite understandably, the Dauphin thinks this is crazy and that Villiers has no obligation to keep that promise. (Cf JRRT's escape of the prisoner vs flight of the deserter argument.) But Villiers sticks to his guns, and the Dauphin relents and provides the passport specifically so Villiers won't return empty-handed to his erstwhile captors and voluntarily re-enter captivity.
* And then the King of France tries to order the Dauphin to break his promise of safe-conduct, on the theory that it was ultra vires and countermanded. Here, too, the King ultimately relents and allows the Dauphin to honor his promise.