Customer Reviews

William Shakespeare Complete Works (Modern Library)

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Perhaps, like me, you have held on to the Complete Works of William Shakespeare you've had since college and are wondering if the world really needs yet another edition of the Bard's complete output. Well, the Modern Library edition of the Royal Shakespeare Company's Shakespeare has a lot to recommend it. The text is beautifully set in single column format, making it easier for actors and those who wish to read the text aloud to scan the poetic lines and to distinguish between poetry and prose. Jonathan Bates's General Introduction is comprehensive, engaging, and lively. As with the introductions to the individual plays, Bates gives special attention to the performance traditions from which these plays emerged as well as those which would shape their interpretation over the centuries. This concern for performance issues is also addressed in the "Key Facts" boxes that follow every play introduction. Here the editors summarize the plot, identify the major parts (with percentage of lines and number of speeches assigned to each character, etc.), take a stab at identifying a dates of composition and first performance, and discuss the plays' sources and state of the texts available. There are ample, but not an overwhelming number of footnotes. And these notes, Bates assures us, do not shy away from discussion of Shakespeare's bawdier puns (something that may not be true of your old college textbook). Another real plus is the inclusion of a fragmentary scene from "Sir Thomas More" based on the only manuscript known to be in Shakespeare's own hand.

But the best reason to buy the RSC Shakespeare is because the editors have gone to great lengths to preserve the First Folio (1623) edition of Shakespeare. They have modernized the spelling and punctuation and have read (and corrected) the text against Quarto texts where these exist, but have not recklessly blended Quarto and Folio texts, something most previous editors have done with impunity for generations. The editors make a strong case for the Folio texts being the best versions available and respecting their "purity" makes it possible for readers and those preparing new stagings to grapple with textual variants in a thoughtful and respectful manner. It seems that Shakespearean textual critical work is finally taking on the discipline of biblical criticism. Let's hope the results will be equally illuminating and revolutionary.

The idea behind this edition is brilliantly simple: produce a modern edition of the First Folio. The editors do not attempt to produce a "definitive" text of Shakespeare. Their goal is more modest: to reconstruct, as closely as possible, the material that Heminges and Condell brought into the printing house in 1623. It is, they say, a snapshot of the playtexts at one stage in their evolution.

The various quarto and octavo editions are used to correct the Folio text (where that is obviously corrupt) but not to supplement it. Passages excised from the Folio are printed here in appendices and textual notes. Plays that didn't appear in the Folio appear in a different format in the back. (So too with the poems and sonnets.) If passages vary in wording between the early editions, the Folio receives precedence, as long as it makes sense.

The notes are also quite extensive about vocabulary and are franker than usual about sexual matters. The notes about historical events are not as extensive as those in the Riverside, but the chronologies, introductions, and other supplementary materials do provide the basic background. The introductions, by Jonathan Bate, are concise and steer a middle course between dramatic / thematic issues on one hand and developmental / textual issues on the other.

Like the Norton Shakespeare, the plays are here printed in single-column format, which greatly aids readability. Unlike the Norton, which prints the plays in approximate chronological order, the plays are printed here in the order they appeared in the First Folio. Highly recommended.

To would-be purchasers: At the library or bookstore, see for yourself if you can really deal with all the physical drawbacks of this book, if it will really meet the demands of how you read and for what you intend to use this book. It should hold up okay for occassionaly pulling off the shelf for a point of reference. But if you need to handle it often, if you really want to get into the text, then I don't see how this book can hold up.

The 1 star is for the publisher of this edition. My complaint is to the person (or persons) who gave the go-ahead for the production specs. They are unworthy of the words of Shakespeare and the work of the editors. The production and printing are truly paltry. All the other review negatives are legit -- cumbersome size and weight; toilet paper thin paper, subject to easy tearing; ink bleeding through recto/verso pages (and in my copy, there's an ink splatter on p. 1438 and several splotches throughout); as well as the binding, which is a non-signature fake sewn binding, glued together like a softcover. As such, this book cannot endure much handling, and over time, as we know with such books, no matter how careful we are, the glue will stale, the spine will crack, and pages will dislodge like rotten teeth. This is absolutely not an edition you can hand down the generations; and depending on your use, it may or may not last even a few years. This edition purports to be a study/working edition, but the book as a physical object precludes any of that. I can't imagine a student or actor lugging it to class or the theatre and trying to recite with a nearly 5-lb 3-inch thick book cradled in his/her arm. Let alone making notes in the generous margins -- the low-grade paper causes text on each side of a page to seep through often clearly enough to be read so that would make scribbling notes difficult; and this paper could not possibly properly absorb notes in pen or highlighter (either would mark and indent right though the other side; light pencil or post-its might work though).

After purusing a few essays and notes, I give the editors 3 stars so far. The scholarship may be serious and exemplary (per other reviewers), but I've read better insights and more extensive notes elsewhere (with etymology, cross-refs, annotations). Here, the footnotes are rudimentary (for example, "fearful" is "frightened", "false" is "dishonest, disloyal", "maim" means to "wound, damage") -- perhaps the target audience starts at age 8. Stage directions of sorts are added here and there; they seem to clarify what's already rather obvious in the text proper. The "Key Facts" are easily digestible, but I can only trust that the editors got all their facts and dates correct, as I have yet to come across any sourcing or even a ref list.

But the main thing is that I simply can't get around the physical inadequacies of this book, so I'm returning my copy for a refund. Instead, I'll check out my public library's copy because I still want to know what all the introductory essays have to say.

I have all the works in various single-volume Quatro-based editions, so I thought it would be interesting to have a volume with the Folio-based text intact. Hopefully, the publisher will come to its senses and re-issue this edition based on previous Modern Library editions, that is, dividing the works into 3 or 4 volumes at a paper size and quality that can be used by human hands and read with human eyes -- even at a higher price, that I would purchase and keep. By the way, I own the two-volume 1938 "Complete Greek Drama" (also published by Random House). Those 70-year-old used books have held up far better than this 2007 new complete Shakespeare ever will. Perhaps this Shakespeare edition is a prime indication of the state of the book publishing industry today -- the bottom line served Will ill.

I'm going to be the naysayer among reviewers of this book. While the edition is interesting, and the concept of only using the First Folio is certainly something to be applauded, the publishers have opted for perhaps the poorest readability of any complete edition. (Ok, there must be worse, among the really cheap ones...)

First, the paper is too thin, meaning that you read one page while seeing the outlines of the text on the other side. The text is printed in a single column, which is good for the parts in verse, but prose sections then have very long lines, which hinders readability. Finally, the footnotes are small and hard to read. Also, while some editions have numbers on lines that have notes, this one doesn't, so you really have to check all the time to see if there are notes. Perhaps real Bardologists don't need the notes that clarify word meanings, but I'm not at that stage yet.

On the plus side, each play has a useful, though brief, introduction, with a "key facts" box, containing a plot summary, roles, dates, and more.

I find it surprising that publishers have to skimp on paper to force these editions into single volumes. Better paper would mean two volumes, and perhaps a higher price point, but they would be so much more readable (not only for the paper, but for each volume having fewer pages). In fact, why not three volumes: comedies, histories and tragedies?

I find that the Pelican edition is far more readable. Naturally, most purchasers of this edition are interested in the comparison between First Folio texts and other texts, so they'll probably buy this anyway. If this does become prescribed in courses, I feel bad for the students who will find this paper shoddy and prone to tears. The book deserves 5 stars for content, but much less for its bookness.

This is among the best Complete Works of Shakespeare that I own, and will likely to remain there if the excellent people at the Arden Shakespeare do not deliver something magical when they most likely release a Complete Works set after wrapping up their third series editions in the next three years.

I will try to be brief yet lengthy enough to give you a good idea what this volume is all about. First, I will give a general introduction to its editing principles, the size of the volume and paper-quality. From that I will advance to talk about the positive things about the edition and then the negative. In the end I will try to summarize which edition you might want to buy and in what circumstance.

"Introduction"

What makes this edition different from any else is that its basis is the 1623 First Folio. In other words, they have not created hybrid texts as everyone else seems to be doing, whatever their intentions be. Instead, we get a rather strict update of the Folio, which as a literary work is unsurpassed perhaps only by the King James Version by its importance to the Western English-speaking culture.

What does it mean, then? If you go to the Oxford edition, they will give you two Lears. Why? Because they consider the Quarto Lear and the Folio Lear as different plays, and thus print both. The Norton, a student version of Oxford, adds to this a conflated version, which borrows from both. A sort of a best-of piece. Indeed, most versions you will see are conflated from the Q and F sources, but this is what happens with the RSC Shakespeare: they follow the F source all the way, but do print passages missing from the Folio after the play. They do the same with "Hamlet" and other plays with such problems. What this means is that technically everyone else has printed a hybrid version of a play Shakespeare never wrote or that was never published.

They also retain the conservative language-policy of the Folio. In early stages of the 17th century a decree was given according to which profanity was to be put under surveillance in the play-books that had become a market on their own. Thus, when we have an early quarto of our dear sir John Falstaff cursing, it most likely will have been softened for the Folio. Bate and Rasmussen retain this distinction, and whether you like it or not is up to you: at least they are not ambiguous but follow the Folio. After all, that was the point of the whole edition.

"The Two Noble Kinsmen", "Pericles" and the poems were not in the Folio, you may say. Are they included? They are. The two plays after all the others in double-column forward, edited, alright, but in a smaller font to make distinction between what was in the Folio originally and what was not. Also the scene from "Sir Thomas More" attributed to Shakespeare is there. All the poems are there, as well, so this is a complete works of Shakespeare even by our modern standards.

"Book Size and Weight"

The book is a hefty one, a ludicrous statement considering that it is a Complete Works of Shakespeare I am talking about. In other words, do not feel betrayed when this arrives to your doorstep and it actually takes space in your bookshelf and actually weights a bit. The hardcover might be problematic if you have to carry it to college all the time, yet you could buy individual plays, then. Of course, I do not know about other countries and their academic course structure, but here in Finland we had specific plays we read during the year and analyzed, in fact separated to "Comedies" and "Tragedies", so I have never really had this problem. If you have a vaguely titled course entitled as "Shakespeare", I can only sympathize with you.

But then again, we pamper too much the student-audience of Shakespeare, when in fact not all of us who read the RSC Shakespeare are students attending to the university (although I am one, admittedly). This is a marvellous edition, and its heftiness makes it feel secure and strong.

"The layout and editorial heft"

I will now advance to the generally positive remarks. In other words, the stuff that makes this the standout edition that it is. Firstly, the one-column layout. Of the editions I have seen (Penguin, Arden, Oxford, Bevington, Riverside, Collins, Norton) only the Norton has a single-column layout for the text. Of the ones mentioned only Bevington does not feel crammed as the others do with their two columns, yet Bevington has insufficient space for one's notes. For notetaking the Norton isn't so fit, either, because although the page contains only a single column, the page is not too wide to include much white space. In this respect this is such a pleasure to read, and after reading it once from beginning to end, all 2,500 pages of it, I may now find myriads of notes written on the white space on many pages. For discussion of page-thickness, see below.

"Introductions"

How is the editorial matter? I am one of those who is put off by too much in too little space, and the Norton is a prime example of this. There is much in small print which simply discourages me to read any of it. One gets used to it after a while, but sometimes, especially with the introductions, I wonder if Greenblatt could have edited his contribution a bit further. Also, I do not like if there is too much cultural knowledge in the beginning of the book, as I like, for the first time, to read from beginning to end, and have the wholeness of it experienced. I remember being discouraged by the Bevington, the Riverside and the Norton.

As you might have guessed from my rhetoric, not so here. Bate gives a general introduction which is short yet long enough to get us excited about Shakespeare and immersed enough in the cultural surroundings. This is coming from a reader who has read a bit about Elizabethan culture and commerce, so I cannot vouch for the general acceptability or sufficiency of the introduction and whether it really is suitable for first-timers. Either way, his gift is his theatrical knowledge, and it is wonderful to read about some of his insight about the staging and the theatre-trivia that he embeds in his introductions, and a problem for many introductions is that they only seem like massive libraries, not written introductions in themselves, which might seem daunting. This, on the other hand, is a well-structured and balanced text. One important scholarly aspect of this edition is that it acknowledges Lukas Erne as an influence, whose Shakespeare As Literary Dramatist is destined to become the first real classic of twenty-first century Shakespeare criticism. Erne's groundbreaking analysis shows that Shakespeare was more likely to have written future publication in mind than is generally presumed (the length of "Hamlet" and "King Lear" in the Folio being good examples in themselves). Although the theatrical director of the Royal Shakespeare Company understandably tries to diminish this by musing that Shakespeare, first of all, wrote for the stage and not for the page (the man has tickets to sell!), we no longer have to cope with the embarrassingly out-of-date "scholarly" methodology of an Anthony Gurr who goes on to argue, even in the second edition of the Norton Shakespeare, that Shakespeare couldn't have been any less interested about the publication of his works. We are lucky that this edition does not rehash material, making it the first real edition of Shakespeare in this century, not the Bevington, Norton or any other.

"Introductions to the plays"

How about the introductions to the plays themselves? Unfortunately so many of the editions floating around are designated to the student that there isn't much to say about the introductions besides the obvious points. They are short this time, yet much of them are still full of the most obvious stuff, especially when Bate analyzes the play. Succinct but uninspiring. The good thing is, indeed, that the introductions are very short and do not get in the way when one wishes to read the play, but this is also the downfall: the introductions are general and so is the attempted analysis. I don't mind: I have my Goddards, Nuttalls, Blooms and Garbers for commentary. The point of a good introduction is not to analyze exhaustively but merely to give the essential knowledge to enjoy the play and give the proper key to unravel the mysteries of the play and actually find out things by ourselves. Sometimes Bate does get a bit redundant, and sometimes I outright disagreed with him, but generally the introductions are fine. However, there is some unbelievable occasional blather, as well. For example, he writes of the ending of "The Two Gentlemen Of Verona" that " We do get the ending we expect and desire, but the abruptness with which it comes about is a sign of impatience or immaturity on Shakespeare's part--but then again, his mind was so restlessly inventive that he never really cared for endings." (p. 55) Thus, the introductions can be theatrically illuminating at best and at worst as clueless as shown above. Such analysis is not pervasive, thankfully (you may read a fine analysis of the ending, which I by the way think is superb, in Nuttall's Shakespeare the Thinker), and often the introductions are nice reads.

But the best thing about the introductions are the fact-boxes: the plot summarized, the date given, primary textual sources given and then, the best of it all, the ratio of the verse and prose in the play, and a list of how much does a character speak of all the lines, how many speeches does he or she have, and in how many scenes does he or she appear in. This is pure gold and very useful. I haven't ever really realized that 90% of "The Merry Wives of Windsor" is prose, only the remaining 10% is verse. Also, Iago has a very small percentage of lines in the play he dominates, and Prospero and Hamlet utterly dominate theirs.

As these are theatre-people giving us a text, they have made one wonderful contribution to enhance our understanding of the text. As you may know, the division of the play into five acts is not so much a Shakespearean convention (he does it occasionally) but a later frivolity. I think Shakespeare can be better understood as a continuation of scenes that follow one another, and for example for "Hamlet" we have besides the traditional numbering "5.2" a marking in the right margin that counts the number of scenes without interruption ("running scene 17"). These are utterly indispensable. With "Othello", as Bate remarks, they dramatically enhance our understanding of the double time Shakespeare employs.

"The Negative"

Is there anything generally negative in this edition? Sure, but we have to be reasonable. For example, the page-thickness is, if not exactly biblically thin, very close to it. In fact, if I pressed too hard with my pencil (a lead pencil, by the way) I could see the mark three or four pages ahead. That is, I often mark compelling passages with a vertical line on the left side of the text, and sometimes I pressed even so slightly too hard and I saw the line on not only the next one, but the following, as well. It should be noted that I also wrote my running commentary on the white space on the right side of the text, and some of it bleeds, or should we say, is "pressed" from the recto to the verso on the other side, but nothing too drastic. I do admit that this might be a problem if you either press too hard, as I was deliberately delicate with my writing as not to damage the pages. Yet to be reasonable, to have the volume be any thicker from what it is already would be off the limits and I'm sure they did try to make the pages as thick as possible in the circumstances.

The real drawback that they could have done better is the way they printed the glosses on the bottom of the page. I found the glosses quite good in this edition, but this shares the problem of the Riverside that it is bothersome to find a line where you have a difficult word to understand and then count the line number which ever it is, for example l. 247, and then go to the bottom of the page to see if it is glossed. To my surprise I saw myself not using glosses that much anymore apart from a few crucial places where the meaning is utterly obscure and not understandable from the context and the RSC did provide a gloss in most cases. The problem is that most often my eye skipped right to the bottom column and of course it took time to find the correct place. The Norton, for all its flaws, has a nice system as it prints the gloss in the right margin on the same line as the text. This, of course, discourages the reader from figuring things out by himself as I like to do, and would have been impossible for the RSC as they print their stage directions in that space. But they could have done what Bevington did: to add a line number to each line for which there is a gloss in the bottom section. Bevington's drawback is that he only marks the line numbers according to the glosses, so counting lines is occasionally a difficult procedure. The RSC at least has a constant numbering system as they mark every fifth line.

"Summary"

Apart from this and the occasional lack of illumination in Bate's analysis and comments, this is the best collected edition of Shakespeare that I know of for the simple reason that its editorial principle is the best I know of, and am very glad that I now have it in my home library to take and read. It is also very nice to have the plays in the Folio order (Oxford and Norton have them in so-called "chronological" order; others mainly add a fourth genre for "The Tempest", "The Winter's Tale" and "Measure For Measure", etc.)

In short, this is a very attractive volume, and the white space is useful for an avid commentator such as myself. The pages are thin and the introductions are occasionally disappointingly redundant (and, let's face it, no writer can live up to the expectations of every reader), yet the editing is superb, and it makes all the difference in the world to have a clear source edition on which this text is based. I very much recommend this volume for each enthusiast.

But which volume to buy? Well, they are all hefty ones. The Riverside stands the tallest, then the Bevington, then the Norton pretty much at even height with this. This volume is perhaps the thickest of the four I own. I do not recommend the Oxford edition for a personal grudge concerning its editorial policy, and naturally I wouldn't recommend its offspring, the Norton, although it is the only one besides the RSC that has single-column layout for the plays. The Riverside is the only one at the moment that does not print the full names of the characters in the speech headings, a noticeable flaw.

I would lean towards this edition for a few reasons. First of all, it is consistent when it has taken as its mission to edit the First Folio. This means that they actually have real editions of plays, not hybrids that take bits and pieces from everywhere. I find the idea of having a newly-edited First Folio at hand very attractive. Secondly, the layout is magnificent for note-taking, and although the paper is thin, it does not bother me. The page does not feel crammed like the Riverside or even the Norton. The Bevington is pleasurable to read as well, but because of two columns it has less space for notes. The final reason is the most personal, but not the least important: Bate recognizes an influence in Lukas Erne, the author of Shakespeare as Literary Dramatist, in which Erne gives solid evidence that Shakespeare not only wrote for the stage but wrote long plays (that obviously had to be cut for performance) publication in mind. The Norton is so immersed in its flawed methodologies concerning the authenticity of the text that they even to this day have Andrew Gurr announce in their introduction that Shakespeare could not have cared less about publication. This edition is the first one to really take advantage of this shimmering thought: Shakespeare was not indifferent toward the publication of his works, and we should not forget this when we read him. Quite ironic that such an edition comes from an acting company of all people.

THE SOUR:
The other reviewer who complained about the thin paper was right! I am literally afraid to turn the pages. Think of the flimsiest, cheap-motel toilet paper you've ever encountered. Slice it in half. It's about that thin. And you can, indeed, read what's on the next page right through the text you're scanning.

These mega-collections of Shakespeare exist for two reasons -- either for those who want it to look swell on their shelves or for those familiar enough with the plays that they don't need the more utilitarian Arden or Folger editions as tutors. For the latter, we want a useful, all-in-one kit for quick reference. In that case, it should be relatively rugged. I don't want a fragile, expensive book that I'm afraid to open. Given the highly competitive nature of these Shakespeare anthologies, this design flaw really overshadows the merits.

THE SWEET:
The book comes with a useful introduction to Shakespeare and an exciting section of photos of RSC productions. The photos are so interesting that I'm disappointed that they don't run throughout the book. (Given how flimsy the pages are, they have the room.) Essays introduce each play, and every show receives a "Key Facts" rundown listing a plot summary, a list of the major parts (with the percentage of their relative line load, number of speeches, and number of scenes), the verse-to-prose ratio, the presumed authorship date, and notes on the sources. The plays themselves have running, footnoted location notes, "translations" of archaic language, and illuminating stage directions.

OVERALL:
An interesting addition, but I'll make sure that I have the proper time to handle it delicately before I take it off the shelf. As my quick reference, it probably won't replace the Oxford, Wells/Taylor-edited collection, controvertial though it is.

As a translator of Shakespeare's plays, I use every edition I can get my hands, so I was thrilled to see that the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) has added a newly edited and glossed collection of all the plays, drawing mostly from the First Folio. As a complete works entry, the RSC version has a lot going for it.

True, the paper is thin and a bit too transparent, but this is also true of the recent The Norton Shakespeare: Based on the Oxford Edition. If that bothers you, choose the The Riverside Shakespeare, 2nd Edition, which has less transparent paper. But recognize that the Riverside is about 500 pages shorter and crams the text into two columns, with character names abbreviated and no room for your notes. It tires my eyes quickly. The RSC is very comfortably laid out with lots of white space and a nice font of school-book clarity. The bold-faced sans-serif font for the characters stands out clearly from the serif font for the lines. The extra stage directions help comprehension, and their location in the right margin rather than in brackets in the text removes clutter.

I also enjoyed immensely the General Introduction by Jonathan Bate. Usually, I find myself daydreaming and wanting to skip ahead through these formalities, but I could not put this one down and wished that it were longer. I particularly enjoyed his efficient rebuttal to the Oxfordian authorship claims. In the blogosphere, Oxfordians have convinced each other that Shakespeare was no more than an illiterate grain dealer, but Bates expertly displays why almost all scholars accept Shakespeare as the author. The blogosphere should take note.

The text itself offers a generous number of glosses. I hold that the more help modern readers get the better. So I did a spot check of how many words or phrases were glossed in a famously difficult passage from King Lear (often left out in performances because of its difficulty). Here is the passage:

KENT.
Sir, I do know you,
And dare, upon the warrant of my note,
Commend a dear thing to you. There is division,
Although as yet the face of it be covered
With mutual cunning, 'twixt Albany and Cornwall;
Who have--as who have not, that their great stars
Throne and set high--servants, who seem no less,
Which are to France the spies and speculations
Intelligent of our state. What hath been seen,
Either in snuffs and packings of the dukes;
Or the hard rein which both of them have borne
Against the old kind king; or something deeper,
Whereof, perchance, these are but furnishings...

The RSC offered 12 glosses while the Norton and Riverside both offered 9. And thankfully, the gloss uses both a line number and a bold-faced repetition of the word or phrase in question to make it easier to reestablish your place in the text.

All in all, the RSC is a friendly, helpful edition. Naturally, at nearly 2500 pages it is difficult to hold in your lap, and the flimsy pages mean durability problems. So for intense study of one play, opt for one of the many paperback versions of individual plays. But as a single source for someone with a spontaneous urge to read a play, the RSC edition fits the bill.

For anyone who wishes to work with Shakespeare's plays (actors, directors, students), this is the edition to own. The single column format makes it extremely easy to read. It also means there is no wrapping of iambic lines like in many two column editions.

Annotations are plentiful and more verbose than most. The generous whitespace means plenty of room to add your own notes as well. I have been shopping for an updated text to replace my old Complete Works and found this version to be a joy.

The thin paper is a downside, but necessary to maintain some usability in a book this size. It is, however, surprisingly durable.

Here's an idea for the reviewer who is disappointed by the slight show-through caused by the paper of the Modern Library edition: go to amazon.co.uk and buy the Macmillan edition - it has thicker paper and no show-through, making it the most reader-friendly of all complete editions! But, that said, the problem of show-through and thinness of paper is WAY WORSE in the Norton edition that many students are made to buy.

I have had the previlege of learning Shakepeare from one of the editors himself, Dr. Eric Rasmussen. The first class I took with him, we used the Bantam paperback editions of the plays (this book was in press at that time). The second semester, after a long wait, I finally got to compare the Bantam editions with the RSC edition. Though the Bantam Shakepeare, edited by David Bevington and David Kastan, is excellent in its own right as student-friendly version with lots of helpful notes, I found the RSC Shakespeare to be the superior choice. I first agree with the editorial decision to use the First Folio text as the basis. The First Folio was produced by the actors who worked with the Bard himself. The scripts were meant to be a blueprint for what happens on the stage. So those who argue that the Quarto texts with more lines are the authoritative versions need to let go of the notion that more is better. With ample notes and insightful introductions, RSC Shakespeare serves its purpose well by providing the readers a context for Elizabethan theatre life. I would whole-heartedly agree with those who are not satisfied with the paper quality - it sucks. This book is not meant for abusive use - highlighting, underlining, dog-earing, etc. - it is far too expensive for that. For heavy use in classrooms as text, I would recommend to go with Arden or Bantam editions. They are easier on the wallet, and kinder to the faint of heart who cannot dare to put a highlighter to such delicate pages. But if you want some serious scholarship and quality you can count on, do invest in RSC Complete Shakespeare.