Shakespeare Editions

>>7670152
>Do you prefer complete compilations or having a separate copy for each play?
I don't care

File: 51uJqm9IyFL._AC_UL320_SR238,320_.jpg (26KB, 238x320px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 238x320px

Don't know about best editions but complete edition vs. individual comes down to what you're doing with it. It's a pain in the ass to carry a complete Shakespeare everywhere and if you're big on annotation it can get annoying trying to write on non-facing pages in the beginning or facing pages near the end.

This was my Shakespeare for a long time. Don't know anything about the quality of the contents but it had pretty engravings in it. Weighed 7 lbs and was impossible to fit in any bag though.

>>7670152
I preferencia Arden over other edition, but The Oxford Shakespeare is cheaper and smaller, and the scholarly work is top notch too.

I preferencia individual works over complete works, mainly because the former are more focused and thorough, though they are more expensive in the long run.

This is what I have at hand
I also have the King Lear edition, but it's back home.

>>7670219
Fucking autocorrect.

File: IMG_20160207_123607366.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>7670219
I also forgot pic related.

Is there an edition with minimal notes, just glossing difficult passages/words. Arden ruins Shakespeare by trying to make him into some lexical god that referenced everything ever written.

>>7670295
Except they don't.

Try the Oxford Shakespeare.

>>7670152
I'm likely just to pick up a complete Shakespeare collection because it'd save me money on picking up individual editions of each play and I'd rather have all the work in one convenient place.

To those that have owned complete Shakespeare collections before: How did you find them? Is there any editions that should be major no-nos or are they usually a safe bet?

>>7670152

According to Harold Bloom, Oxford ruins the texts. He likes Arden and Riverside.

>>7670611
Source?

>>7670611
Yeah but Bloom is a Yalefag

>>7670611

I forget where I read it. It might have been in one of his books, or in an interview, but here's something from a review on a book about his work:

>Bloom insults Gary Taylor in the third sentence of his acknowledgments: Taylor's Oxford Shakespeare "perversely seeks, more often than not, to print the worst possible text"; and Kerrigan gets in his licks, too: "There is no more pathetic book in modern criticism than Gary Taylor's Reinventing Shakespeare (1989)" (38). Taylor's reply is the anger peak of this collection. Writing annoyingly in the third person, Taylor claims that "Bloom is effectively quoting and endorsing Taylor's work" (50)—an interesting accusation considering "Taylor's" belief that "Shakespeare's reputation is on life support and would die if it were removed from the machine that is artificially prolonging its life" (51). Taylor, for his part, would gladly, righteously, pull the plug on the moribund Bard.
>https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/shakespeare_quarterly/summary/v054/54.1danson.html

I'm quoting much more than I need to because the rest is funny.

I was struggling with this same question yesterday. I ended up picking up a couple Oxford plays since I've purchased Oxford Classics before and have been happy with the quality. When I have time, I'm going to get an Arden Hamlet and compare the two side by side before deciding on one series to fully flesh out.

File: $_57.jpg (349KB, 1599x1200px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 1599x1200px

>>7670152
I own a version similar to this. They're pocket sized with about four plays in each volume. I wanted these so I could carry around a volume to read anywhere (uni, work) so a big tome was put of the question.

It has no supplementary material but I own Van Doren's shakespeare and some others which I read and study at home at my leisure.

I've got the Norton hardcover.

Not sure if I'd recommend it. Content-wise it's great, and it looks fucking beautiful. But the paper is thinner than bible paper. It's nearly transparent. Doesn't make for the best reading experience.

>>7670698
> $57 is the filename

Please tell me that is an accurate price for this collection. I'm very tempted.

>>7670763
I just ripped this from ebay, I payed $41 on amazon for mine a few months ago, which isn't blue, it's more burgundy. The box was beat up but the books were pristine.

What's the best collected works? With a cheeky bit of annotation, glossary etc?

>>7670896
Norton or Arden.

>>7670152
Riverside. Always Riverside.
The critics know it's the best.
Bloom knows it's the best.
Anyone that's read it knows it's Riverside.