Scan barcode
reads_eats_explores's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.0
jbmorgan86's review
2.0
Shakespeare in a Year, Play #11 of . . . 40? When the year-long reading plan that I have for the Complete Works of William Shakespeare (https://s3.amazonaws.com/first-things-resources/uploads/resource_5a37e8817a8e6.pdf) dictated that I read Edward III next, I opened my trusty clearance shelf copy of the complete works only to find that Edward III was missing! In fact, several of the plays on the list were missing (Edward III, Sir Thomas Moore, and The Two Noble Kinsmen). What gives?! A quick Google search revealed that the reason several of these are missing is because they are considered Shakespeare's apocrypha. Therefore, these plays are not typically included in "complete works" collections.
That being said, it seems that the scholarly consensus is that though Shakespeare did not write all of Edward III he at least did have a hand in Edward III. My completely un-scholarly take on it is that either Shakespeare didn't write this or even the bard can write some real stinkers.
There isn't much that happens in this story. Edward III declares himself the king of England and France (the beginning of the Hundred Years War), saves the Duchess of Salisbury from rebellious Scots, tries to woo her away from her husband, and then goes to the battlefield in France (the beginning of the Hundred Years War). Several soliloquies about mortality follow as Edward "the Black Prince" faces certain death but valiantly hacks his way through the French. Aaaaand . . . that's about it.
Significant quote(s):
"If we then hunt for death, why do we fear it?
If we fear it, why do we follow it?
If we do fear, how can we shun it?
If we do fear, with fear we do but aid
The thing we fear, to seize on us the sooner.
If we fear not, then no resolved proffer
Can overthrow the limit of our fate,
For, whether ripe or rotten, drop we shall,
As we do draw the lottery of our doom."
That being said, it seems that the scholarly consensus is that though Shakespeare did not write all of Edward III he at least did have a hand in Edward III. My completely un-scholarly take on it is that either Shakespeare didn't write this or even the bard can write some real stinkers.
There isn't much that happens in this story. Edward III declares himself the king of England and France (the beginning of the Hundred Years War), saves the Duchess of Salisbury from rebellious Scots, tries to woo her away from her husband, and then goes to the battlefield in France (the beginning of the Hundred Years War). Several soliloquies about mortality follow as Edward "the Black Prince" faces certain death but valiantly hacks his way through the French. Aaaaand . . . that's about it.
Significant quote(s):
"If we then hunt for death, why do we fear it?
If we fear it, why do we follow it?
If we do fear, how can we shun it?
If we do fear, with fear we do but aid
The thing we fear, to seize on us the sooner.
If we fear not, then no resolved proffer
Can overthrow the limit of our fate,
For, whether ripe or rotten, drop we shall,
As we do draw the lottery of our doom."
charlottesometimes's review
informative
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
2.0
mjones14's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
slow-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
2.5
It's the same as every other Shakespeare history- boring
Content Warnings
Moderate: Sexism, Kidnapping, Stalking, and War
davehershey's review against another edition
2.0
Not included in my complete works of Shakespeare, I guess because it was only somewhat recently seen to be included among Shakespeare's writings (though I also read it is believed someone else helped write large portions, or possibly finish it). At any rate, I am preparing to read Shakespeare's great history plays so first I read King John, then Marlowe's Edward II and now this one. I say those others are great based on reputation. These so far have just been good. Edward III is not really memorable....I am honestly having a hard time remembering what happened and I only finished it a few days ago. Edward spends the first part pining for the queen of Scotland and once he gets the message to stop being a creep, he moves on to fighting in France. Unless I missed it, there is little connection here and thus it seemed disjointed.
Anyway, I am taking a break from Shakespeare to read something else, but I do hope the Richards and Henrys are better than the Johns and Edwards.
Anyway, I am taking a break from Shakespeare to read something else, but I do hope the Richards and Henrys are better than the Johns and Edwards.
gillothen's review against another edition
3.0
An interesting mishmash. The Countess of Salisbury scenes, considered to be by Shakespeare, are interesting in the way they parallel the later invasion of France - the King demands power and submission in both cases, wrongly in both.
lckeser7's review against another edition
3.0
Perhaps not even written by Shakespeare, but as I try to read The Complete Works this year, I had to read it just in case.
It definitely doesn't read like Shakespeare all the time, but it was surprisingly okay. It's a middling play among the histories. Not near the best, not near the worst. I'll probably never read this one again, but I'm glad I took the time.
It definitely doesn't read like Shakespeare all the time, but it was surprisingly okay. It's a middling play among the histories. Not near the best, not near the worst. I'll probably never read this one again, but I'm glad I took the time.
herodotean's review against another edition
3.0
Not surprising that this play's authenticity was contested for so long. I doubt I will ever feel the need to reread it.