Seeing as /lit/ is almost completely devoid of any kind of literary

I have a few RSC Shakespeare editions, I like the essays at the end focusing not on the play itself, but on the history of the play in theater (plus their ebook editions are well-formatted and the annotations are actually useful)

>>8357593
If there's one thing I don't like about Signet Classics' Shakespeare plays is that the annotations suck ass. 95% of them are definitions of words that don't require a 3rd party to define.

I'll definitely check out the RCS's complete Shakespeare collection, thanks!

>>8357593
I have these too, and Van Doren's Shakespeare

my norton critical edition of Heart of Darkness is v lit. background sources, essays, criticisms, etc. so fucking tight.

File: 1470281799205-502859785.jpg (888KB, 1520x2688px) Image search: [Google]

888KB, 1520x2688px

I have this guy.

I'm a big fan of Frank Kermode's book Shakespeare's language. It's nice to back up from all the abstract theory and just examine how he was a fantastic writer before all else.

>>8358864
This, this, fucking this. The Mark Van Doren Shakespeare is also great, as it is this other book:"the poetry of shakespeare's plays", by F.E. Halliday. Harold Bloom is trash.

>>8358246
A companion guide should be mandatory for any publications of The Waste Land

Do you find reading analysis/criticism aids you in reading "deeper"/having a richer reading experience?

Broadview puts out good ones.

Since Shakespeare is my favorite writer I have read a lot of criticism on him, and my personal list of best critical books about Shakespeare is this one (in no particular order);

>Shakespeare’s Imagery, by Caroline Spurgeon;
>Shakespeare’s Language, by Frank Kermode;
>Shakespeare’s Metrical Art, by George T. Wright;
>The Development of Shakespeare’s imagery, by Wolfgang Clemen;
>The Poetry of Shakespeare’s Plays, by F.E. halliday;
>Shakespeare’s Uses of The Arts of Language, by Sister Mirian Joseph;
>The Language of Shakespeare’s Plays, by B. Ifor Evans

By reading these books one develops an enormous sense of awe and wonder for Shakespeare. He was truly a colossal genius of language.

>>8359557

You know , to me there are two main species of literary critics: a) those who try to interpret what the author meant with his text and b) those who analyze the literary techniques used by the author (metaphors and similes creation, versification , metrification , the structuring of dialogue, punctuation, uses and transformation of source material, descriptions, creation of stream of consciousness: style in general).

In my opinion the critics of category (a ) ( which are by far the most abundant and the most famous - Harold Bloom, for example , is one of them ) are generally useless and, in general, pretentious : you have every reason to want to make your own understanding: who are these gentlemen to have the authority to say what the author wanted to convey through his text? If they can discover the meaning of an author’s text, we also can.

As for the critics of category (b), I must say that they are special people: they spend their whole lives doing a strenuous job than earns them no money and no fame, just for the sake of the love they have for the artists who they are analyzing. The reading of such critics should be constant for young writers: there is nothing that favors more the formation of an young author than the analysis of the bowels of the works of the masters (that and also reading and writing a lot and constantly, of course). Unfortunately critics of category (b) are few and little known (even among serious readers).

>>8360944
Good list, what is your favorite of the group?

>>8357568
Folgers shakespeare is pretty good as well

>>8360946
Do you think Frank Delaney from re:Joyce is in category b?

>>8360946
This dichotomy is weird and doesn't exist. For starters, death of the author is like one of the most significant and widespread developments of modern literary criticism - no serious critic's goals have anything specifically to do with "interpreting" what the author is "trying to convey". So no.

What's a good edition of King Lear, with explanations and such?

>>8360946
"I don't actually read literary criticism": the Post

>>8364294

oh, fuck off Bloom fag

>>8364345
Bloom isn't literary criticism. He's mass market "pop" crit. The fact that you think I'm a Bloomfag means you have no idea what literary criticism is.

>>8364294

This: >>8360944

is me:

>>8360946

So yes, I read a lot of criticism, and I find it very useful, especially for writers.