Customer Reviews

Love's Labour's Lost

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This merry play is a delight for its language. It has more a situation than a plot. The King has sworn himself and three attendants to three years of fasting, abstinence from women, study, and little sleep. Immediately a princess arrives with her attendants that cause the men to regret their oaths. Letters are written, delivered incorrectly, and a huge final scene with disguises, masks, and a wonderfully strange presentation of some of the nine worthies. All of this provides a structure for a rich play of language that is full of wit and bawdy.

This edition has a lengthy introductory essay that helps understand the issues of the text, the historical context, and performance practice issues. The notes are wonderfully helpful in understanding the text and what choices the editors had to make in presenting it. After the play is an essay just on the text of the play, appendix 2 has additional lines that this edition leaves out of the play, appendix 3 discusses Moth's name.

The issue around Moth is that in Elizabethan times Moth would likely have been pronounced more like Mott than our soft th. And the word mote and moth were roughly interchangeable. The name of the insect and the word for a small particle meant roughly the same thing. It is a nice issue to be aware of and the essay is helpful.

Appendix 4 lists words that are rhymed in this play - often a revelation to the way words were pronounced 400 years ago. Appendix 5 lists the compound words, many of them minted in this play.

All in all, this edition is a happy experience of a very fun play.

this is witty play about four guys who vow to sequester themselves for three years in serious study, but who are forced to forswear their vows when four attractive women show up and upset their plans. the humor is mainly in the form of wordplay, as only shakespeare can do, and the verbal jousting between berowne and his lady is especially entertaining, and anticipates the tete-a-tetes between petruchio and katherina in "taming of a shrew" and benedick and beatrice in "much ado about nothing". definitely worth a read, and if you can get it, the bbc television production of LLL is also worth seeing. last of all, i disagree with the other poster who complained of the ending. i thought it was pretty clear that the couples would get together in a year's time. so the ending was implicitly happy. only someone who is accustomed to instant gratification could find fault with it.

Love's Labour's Lost by William Shakespeare is in all probability composed of many inside jokes and the cast of characters may have had attributes or characteristics and maybe even been burlesqued in the play as caricatures of the very people who were viewing it. People like the Earl of Southampton and John Florio, among others. The Spaniard's name "Armado" is likely a jest on the recently sunk Spanish "Armada" and Asimov muses that this charactor is like a sketch of the famous Don Quiote with his commoner servant, named "Moth", having much more wit and sense than the padantic Armado which Cervantes may heve copied, however improbable; this play is likely written 6 years before Don Quiote. Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare: A Guide to Understanding and Enjoying the Works of Shakespeare.

The central idea is what is learning? (The Earl of Southampton, who the play was likely intended for was very interested in learning and in education of all England). Is learning meant to produce a man like Holoferness who can barely be understood by the common man? Is learning for learning sake like light shining on light for no real overall gain but to be blind in it, like Holoferness. Or, as suggested, is the man who possesses the learning, and his actions, the measure of the worth of learning. Is learning to be found in doing and in nature and in woo-ing? Indeed, the master of words and word smithery symbolically smashes his guitar, cuts his ear off, throws his paints against the wall in comic anger at the very realization of the limits of words to pierce the soul and the essence of being. Maybe Shakespeare mocks, here, certain types of learn-ed and masters of language bringing to light the need for action to make learning real in the world, which may have been the Earl of Southhampton's educational theme. Shakepeare has a masters ability to paint but a deep appreciation for the simple and straightforward and real. The play also gives much credit to the good common sense of the English language "sans sans" and clothed in good peasant stuff. Only Hamlet possibly gives a more intimate look at Shakespeare.

Goddard warns, however, not to make too much out of the play it is highly elusive and we may never know Shakespeare's intent. He leaves it to you. The Meaning of Shakespeare Vol. 1

The movie with Kenneth Braughnow Love's Labour's Lost was pretty terrible. The BBC production Love's Labour's Lost Plays: Written by William Shakespeare BBC was good, John Well's performance of Holofornes was subtly dignified, yet ridiculous without trying, which was probably Shakespeare intent. Kenneth Broughnow's version was absurd, lacked the subtlety, it tried too hard to make the obvious funny, like some laugh track to tell the audience something is supposed to be funny. Plus it left a lot out. The BBC version is thorough and one could get a clear understanding of the play after watching it.

This recording is simply superb. Derek Jacobi as the King of Navarre and Jeremy Brett as Berowne have exquisite voices, and the lively and sweet interactions of all the cast make this special. Berowne gives several speeches on love and life and learning which are soaringly beautiful.

All the actors are excellent . They give life to Shakespeare's play. It's a real pleasure to read the printed play while listening to these wonderful performers (to get Brett, at last, honoured as he deserves, see facebook: "posthumous BaAFTA for Jeremy Brett"

The three star rating is rating this book as compared to other Shakespearean plays; if rated against the general run of material out there, it would doubtless rate at least four stars. This is reputed to be one of his earliest works, and it shows. It's still quite good, of course; it's Shakespeare. But compared to his other plays, the language isn't quite as lovely as a fan of Shakespeare tends to expect. Also, the plot is rather trivial and silly (which isn't necessarily unreasonable, given that it's a comedy, but in his later works, even his comedies have more meat to them than this). One thing that this play DOES have going for it is that in the end, love does not automatically conquer all, as it usually does in Shakespearean comedies. It is forced to prove itself, rather than being taken at face value, a novel and much preferred concept to what became his usual take on the matter.

Like most of Shakespeare's comidies, LLL involved a couple of very independent women falling in love with a couple of guys who were in love with them too. It also brought mistaken identities into play and, like A Midsummer Night's Dream, it had a play within the play. The humor was mostly in the form of puns, most of which were hard to understand the first time through. The ending was really bad, though, because the girls didn't get together with the guys like they should have if Shakespeare had planned a happy ending. All-in-all, I would only recommend this play for really serious Shakespearean scholars, as it is almost too dense for us laypeople