For a two volume edition (divided chronologically) these hefty Norton paperbacks are lightweight enough, without sacrificing a pencil-friendly page density and readable typeface. That is to say nothing of solid footnotes and competent introductions throughout. Some readers have complained of errant scholarship such as some poems and portions of plays being falsely attributed to Shakespeare. That's a small matter considering that this is otherwise the most readable and well presented two volume edition of Shakespeare available to university students. My reviews of the individual plays in this first volume will follow below as I read them:

TITUS ANDRONICUS

***1/2

Shakespeare's first tragedy, and some say his worst play, makes up what it lacks in high poetry with base vengeance and nonstop bloodshed and gore. As tragic as a mangling highway accident, Shakespeare allows not a soul to be spared in this completely fabricated and historically inaccurate fall of Rome. I make it sound like this is a horrible read, but I underplay its clever turns and wordplay which abound throughout. If not Shakespeare's best play, that hardly means anything within the wider context of modern drama. It's bloody and witty in a way that few could pull off.

RICHARD II

****

On reading Richard's monologue in III.ii.140 two things occurred to me. The first was that this was by far the most deftly poetic monoluge I've encountered in our reading this semester. Richard is a character with great psychological depth that Shakespeare forges this through carefully crafted and emotive language, and this speaks to his development as a playwright. You don't see those dimensions in Titus, for example. The other thing that this monologue and the play as a whole demonstrates is a critique of the monarchy's claim to divine and infallible power. Richard is flawed and corrupt ruler who is usurped by another that is foreshadowed to be no better. I found it surprising that this play has a fairly detailed performance history from Shakespeare's day because of such connotations. Was the performance of the play utilized as critique in specific political contexts at later points perhaps? How were these received?