I'm so very glad to have this as part of my collection. I adore the layout and aims of Bate & Rasmussen's RSC Complete Works, even if I ultimately believe the more all-encompassing scholarship of the Ardens is the pinnacle in Shakespearean research. But every home should have a complete works, and the RSC is top-notch.

Of course, a "Collaborative Works" is always going to be divisive among reviewers, and my own mind is both rapturous and doubtful about this edition. The plays herein are freshly edited and lovingly presented, with a vast amount of detail about the authorship question, stylistic analysis, recent productions, and an overall view of Elizabethan and Jacobean drama. (One of the most important changes in scholarship in the last 50 years is a renewed willingness to see Shakespeare as a creative working in an active theatre industry, rather than some gloomy tower-bound "author" creating plays.) While I'm academically conservative, it is true that the academic establishment has a tendency to grow defensive against change, and I welcome the editors keeping Shakespearean scholarship on its toes. Some of the plays here almost undoubtedly have the Bard's blood running through them, and it's great to see them being revived.

If I have any issues, it's really only that there could have been MORE. The editors openly admit that "The London Prodigal" is very probably not by Shakespeare. I'm completely fine with that. As they point out time and time again, this notion that plays by Shakespeare are instantly valid for our day and age while others are simply archaic is absurd. These plays are vibrant and enjoyable, as well as reminders of the great variety and versatility of the theatre of an entire age. So I suppose my shame is, after reading the introduction and reasons why some plays were omitted... well, why not include a few more? Make this a brand new "Works", to bring so many plays back into people's homes?

Anyhow, that's a slightly ambitious point. I'm very happy to have this. Bate & Rasmussen may have drawn the net too wide in search of Shakespeare (even if I think it is too narrow overall) but it's surely better to encompass all of Shakespeare plus some assortments, than to omit some of his words simply out of some sense of tradition? ( )