| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
3 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
take this play with a grain of salt,
This review is from: King Edward III (Paperback)
im not sure where i stand on the authorship of this play just yet, especially in an age which happily shuns the two noble kinsmen entirely. I would say this is worth a look if you're a scholar, but beginners need not take it as shakespearean cannon. the inclusion of edward III into shakespeare's corpus is a little hasty here.
8 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Shakespeare for Scholars,
By
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: King Edward III (Paperback)
You know you're in trouble when the introduction has footnotes. The time period is the beginning of the Hundred Years War (actually 116 Years). The introduction gives you maps of Crecy and Poitiers (major battle sites) but that is silly because the book will pound you with Shakespeare's historical inaccuracies and compare them to the real record: Edward III's founding of the Order of the Garter to His Bloody Rape of Countess Salisbury (glossed over by the Bard). You don't need a family tree of British Royalty either--just remember the order of the history plays: Edward III, Richard II, Henry IV (1), Henry IV (2), and Henry V.Edward III resembles Henry V--probably because for 116 years they've been fighting the same war against France: Edward III (Sluys, Crecy, Poitiers) Henry V (Agincourt). Henry V is far superior to Edward III. The footnotes in the text have references to other Shakespeare plays--so read this one last--; the Oxford English Dictionary; and notes on the Sources, Froissart and Holinshed, which are written in Middle English; Running Commentary on Shakespeare vs. The Historical Record. The Appendix has a scene by scene account of the sources. This is a scholarly work--as an English Grad I say Bravissimo, Giorgio! However, for the general reader I recommend the Riverside Shakespeare (Complete Works). Yes, it's bulky but accessible to everyone. The Cambridge Edition is portable but its arcane language is accessible mainly to specialists in the field. I can understand the difficulty the reader from Bangkok, Thailand had in reading this edition: She's right on target.
14 of 41 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Don't tackle this history unprepared,
By A Customer
This review is from: King Edward III (Paperback)
The New Cambridge edition provides an extensive introduction passage with the history and background of the play, as well as lengthy footnotes and annotations to the text, which makes the play difficult to read. And if you're not familiar with British history, you'll find yourself constantly flipping back to the introduction, trying to find out exactly what's going on, or who is on what side.The book also provides plenty of illustrations pertaining to the actual dating of Edward III, footnotes and academic guidance, and a small textual analysis. The 'academic guidance' claims to be nonobtrusive, but as you read the actual play you find countless annotations and notes that may take up half the page. Nonobtrusive, you say? The illustrations are interesting, and the stage history can be intriguing. But, as mentionned before, the names are barely recognizable. You honestly don't know what they're talking about. Shakespeare's tragedies and comedies are mostly good reading. Some histories like Richard III and Henry V as well as Henry IIX can prove interesting, too. And they're much easier to comprehend once they've been made into movies. But if you're not into Elizabethian English -- or simply can't understand it -- it's best that you leave Edward III for another time if you really want to read it, or learn the language. And while you're at it, refresh your knowledge of English history. It's that confusing. As for whether Edward III really belongs to Shakespeare, the form is just about the same as the rest of the Bard's work. With some very rare exceptions the lines are in iambic pentameter. To the reader not very familiar with Shakespeare's works or English history, he would not be able to tell the difference between Edward III and any other history play. I was surprised to find the history play tiresome, weary and bland, which led me to wonder whether the great Shakespeare really wrote something this dull. But one can't expect all of history to be interesting. Many writers chose historic subjects partly because they want to record history, not necessarily for entertaining purposes. Even then, to read one of the six doubtful plays of Shakespeare could prove interesting. If you do decide to order it over the Internet -- as it is not available in Thailand -- and sit down and read it, make sure you know your English history and Elizabethian English. It'll be a tough and challenging ride. This work was edited and published with the more intellectual in mind.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|