I want to into Shakespeare. Is there an agreed upon order/plan

Start with the history plays, esp the ones he wrote early on, when he was still learning, a lot of the exchanges between characters are about concrete information and it'll help you get used to the language. As shakespeare wrote, his language got fancier and fancier, so read his early plays first, and between comedys, tragedies, and histories, the histories are the most straightforward. I saw a chart that said start with Hamlet. Wouldnt recommend that. Not only are there plenty other plays that are easier to read, Hamlet is the longest play. Four hours long unabridged.

File: 1380741870038.jpg (2MB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2000px

>>8641007
Not really, there's pic related but you can start from whichever you like. You can go chronologically, generically, even thematically.

I personally recommend a simple one like, such as Romeo and Juliet or Richard III, since both of them are rather early works and lack a subplot, so you can get a feeling of what Shakespeare is like before going into the denser stuff.

As for editions, I recommend the Arden series, but some people are turn off by the amount of annotations. If you are one of those, you may like the Oxford or New Cambridge ones.

You should watch a lot of Shakespeare and then study the written scripts. There is beauty in both forms, but I believe they were intended for the stage; maybe this philosophy can resonate with you and you could use this as an excuse to encounter some very enjoyable productions beit play or even film. I haven't read all of his work but this method has been enriching in many ways.

Get the complete works

Start with the dramas, than the comedies and lastly the historic plays

>>8641007
Don't.

Vastly overrated, the fact that so many literature professors still name Shakespeare as the greatest or most popular English writer shows how far literature is from becoming a serious artform.

>>8641092
>start with the dramas

InigoMontoya.jpg

Someone please post the fucking image with L. Ron Hubbard and shit in it.
I need it.

>>8641007
Start with Macbeth. One of his most famous and memorable, but also one of his shortest and simplest plays. Then do Romeo and Juliet. Richard III is also good and straightforward.

>>8641076

>but I believe they were intended for the stage

I agree with you, and a lot of people say this, but I don't think the stage is the best way to take in Shakespeare. You can't ruminate on important lines and you miss a lot of the subtleties if you're just watching someone say it, in my opinion. If you read it you can take a good look at exactly what the man was writing and you're able to re-read what you choose over and over. What do you think?

>>8641007
don't read romeo and juliet. it'll ruin it for you.
Read The Tempest and Othello for sure, however. They're his most original plays.

>>8641189
Definitely a true perspective. Either way you cannot go wrong, you could even watch a production with a script which is fun too. I felt pretty comfortable with the spoken word quickly and if you're a strong reader I imagine it's no issue to understand after a while.

>>8641189

There's also the fact that a lot of stage productions are just terrible.

>>8641098
>>>/mu/

>>8641205

You're right. Really approaching Shakespeare by both reading and viewing him is best, of course. I'd hate for anyone to only do one.

>>8641007
strongly consider reading Ovid's Metamorphoses to better understand Shakespeare. Romeo and Juliet is basically lifted directly from Ovid.

>>8641290
>basically lifted directly from Ovid
>Romeo and Juliet

wat

>>8641356
Pyramus and Thisbe

>>8641356
pyramus and thisbe

Whatever you start with, try to read his plays in one sitting, or just with short breaks at the act breaks. That's how they were intended to be experienced, and I've found I appreciate them much better when I do it that way compared to reading scenes at my leisure.

"I want to into Shakespeare." start with learning better grammer my dude.

>>8641397
reddit?

>>8641360
>>8641363
His main source for the story was Brooke's Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet, and probably Painter's Palace of Pleasure. Certainly Ovid was an inspiration, but only secondary in this case.

>>8641007
why does Shakespeare have an earring
was he some kind of gangsta or something
was Shakespeare a woman
was Shakespeare black

>>8641411
All of these, at the same time

>>8641400
he has a point, does not matter that he is from reddit

I don't have much experience, but I just read Titus Andronicus and it was really easy. No issues at all following the language or plot.

>>8641356

Supposedly a lot of Shakespeare's stuff was 'borrowed', I've heard this
(specifically) about the histories. I think this was fairly commonplace in
those times. Supposedly he (or they) made major improvements to what was
borrowed.

File: 9780743477109_p0_v3_s1200x630.jpg (59KB, 389x630px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 389x630px

The Folger's Library recent updated editions have very good notations and explanations for words as well as some serviceable essays on theater from Shakespeare's era, Shakespeare himself (what we know) and the play's context and a final separate perspective essay. These editions are usually like $6-$10 and well worth it imo.

>>8641007
>bald
dropped

>>8641468
I already know that, I was surprised because as far as I knew R&J was based on what >>8641402 said.

I've been chugging along with Shakespeare since May this year. Infinite rewards. I think just starting is important in its own right. The order you read depends on what you want to get out of Shakespeare. What motivates you, OP?
Sidenote: I find audio recordings useful for reading. Slows you down and gives you a sense of the different voices and the sounds! the sounds. Personal favorite is Meseaure for Measure.

>>8641469
How many notes? Arden is way too much for me and I was planning on buying RSC complete.

>>8641699
Completely unobtrusive and mostly just definitions or definition-sized explanations. The script is kept on the right page while notes and sometimes relevant images are shown on the left referring to whatever's happening on the page on the right.

>>8641705
That seems to be the perfect layout. Care to post some photos? I don't the book to have a lot of very little notes. A balance between the two would be perfect.

>>8642280
Not that guy, but Amazon has previews.

://www.amazon.com/Macbeth-Folger-Shakespeare-Library-William/dp/0743477103

Personally not a fan of Folger's style of putting the notes on the opposite page, but you can check it out for yourself.

Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth are the absolute minimum. Read with A. C. Bradley's lectures.

>>8641189
Agreed. Watching Shakespeare gives you a particular director's interpretation. You can't appreciate Shakespeare's complexity and make up your own mind.

A character like Hamlet is simply too brilliant to ever be acted well enough.

File: fanks.png (40KB, 1624x235px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 1624x235px

>>8642298
>>8642298
This is exactly why I read the plays along with proper voice-acting, it really aids in the whole Shakespeare experience if you're unable to see it on stage.

I also find that it's easier to understand as a non-native when it's acted out as well.

>>8642287
What editions do you like?

>>8642376
I like the Yale editions, simple (x = y) footnotes.

Penguin's Pelican Shakespeare books are also good.

>>8641411
>why does Shakespeare have an earring
well he wrote 126 sonnets in praise of a beautiful young man, so figure it out.

>>8642288
To be fair, several comedies and histories, particularly Richard the Third, are equally essential to getting a grasp on him.

are there good recordings of some of his pieces somewhere on the internet?

File: ss+(2016-10-21+at+09.13.44).jpg (96KB, 1273x708px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1273x708px

>>8642749
oh ya

>>8642766
is that the 95 movie version?

>>8642800
It is, the one with Ian McKellen set in the 1930s.

>>8642805
thanks, will watch

>>8641098
t. scaruffi

>>8641411

That is not a confirmed portrait of Shakespeare, is just a painting from the same period that bears a likeness to the imprint on the First Folio

>>8642641

Most if the sonnets up to the last 40 or so are about the same young man

>>8641098
>>8641221
>>8642941
Why is it whenever someone posts this meme, people have to point out the joke as if it's not obvious enough? Do you think you're cool for knowing the Scaruffi meme? At least think of a clever response.

If you want to read Shakespeare, you must first become Shakespeare. I would recommend writing Sonnets daily until you can move on to plays. Good luck.

File: shakespeare.png (4MB, 900x3462px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 900x3462px

>>8641116

>>8643591
Jesus christ, it took me till lesson six to realize I was an idiot

I've been reading through the Complete Works, and I'm following the order in Goddard's commentary.

>>8642957
i'm not sure what your point is

File: shakespeare_rainbow.jpg (10KB, 390x73px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 390x73px

>>8641189
I think the proper way to do it is to read them first and then see them in action and then read them again. And even though some people on here are regal faggots with cocks in their asses about watching film versions, they are often the best way--since live versions almost never line up with when you want to read one, never the right one etc. Seeing them live is delightful, however.

My vote is to start with the comedies and then move through the dramas. It's not how I did it, but I think they're easier...and they'll highlight the comedy in the dramas, and vice versa. It's how I would have done it if I had planned it out like OP.

File: 978-0-8223-4845-0_pr.jpg (56KB, 200x304px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 200x304px

Start with this

>>8644082
>dramas

What?

I'm about to finish his complete works, and I'd recommend reading them in largely chronological order (largely, because we can't be sure about what that order is). Start with annotated editions first (Arden is probably the best) before trying the Oxford Complete Works or whatever. Also, regarding Oxford, do careful research if you plan on buying a set of his complete works. The Oxford Complete Works is a pain to read if you're just looking to get into reading without training wheels, as the goal of the editors was not to make a pleasant reading experience, but to recreate how they believed the plays were originally performed (so, for instance, parts of Hamlet that are generally performed and read nowadays are cut out and moved to an appendix after the main play). Also, they did some really stupid stuff to Pericles. I don't know much about other Complete Works editions, but I've looked at some, and they're frequently missing tons of stuff that's generally accepted as Shakespeare's. Additionally, it has to be noted that in making a Complete Works of Shakespeare, one is making an assertion about what is and isn't Shakespeare's, and therefore, one is either supporting or disregarding the works of hundreds of highly specialized scholars. It's really an arrogant act, and I see no reason for it other than profit.

To stop rambling - find annotated editions of what are generally regarded as his earlier plays. His plays (with the exception of Love's Labour's Lost) increase in difficulty as he grows older, so it makes sense to go with the easiest first. Also, even if you plan on going in some other order, make sure to read the Henry VI/Richard III plays BEFORE the Henriad, or else you'll be fantastically disappointed.

File: 1455246864609.jpg (18KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x300px

>>8644120
Oh god

>>8644122
Shakespeare's earliest plays are his worst and some of them are just terrible plays. Why would you recommend someone to start with them?

>>8644207
Which would you say are "terrible"? From a classical standpoint, Henry VI pt. 3 is terrible, but from any reasonable standpoint, none of them are terrible. The only way I would consider any of them terrible is if you're ONLY comparing them to other works of his. Compared to Hamlet, Titus Andronicus is terrible, but that doesn't mean it's even close to bad, it just means that you're comparing a good play to one of the greatest works ever written. I would only consider two of his to be mediocre works (yet not close to terrible): King John and Henry IV pt. 2. My dislike for King John may come down to personal preference, so that leaves Henry IV pt. 2 as less than good. Pericles is a complicated matter, but it's reasonable to say that it's mediocre too, if you rate it based on the collaborator's parts as well as Shakespeare's. But that's beside the point; we're talking about his early plays.

From my point of view, in which none of his plays are "terrible", I recommend starting from his start because of what I said before: his work becomes more difficult as he grows older (excepting LLL). It makes sense to start easy and work your way up, and it's also interesting in that it gives you insight into his growth as a writer. My only reservation in this recommendation is that some of his early works are nebulous as far as authorship goes. Henry VI pt. 1 isn't all his, but whose else is it? And Titus Andronicus? However, this evens out, because none of his early collaborators write in a style more difficult than his was at the time.

Since I'm in the mood to get murdered: if you were to read one of his plays from each major modern category (as opposed to going through his complete works), I'd suggest King Lear, for the tragedy; Much Ado About Nothing, for the comedy; Henry V, for the history; All's Well That Ends Well, for the problem play; and The Tempest, for the late romance; as well as Hamlet, because everybody interested in literature needs to read that one anyway. Of course, Henry V is best if you've read the rest of the Henriad, but it stands well on its own, and it does not fall into the region between history and tragedy. Much Ado About Nothing is not necessarily his best comedy, but it's the most typical while still being quite good.

>>8644306
Two Gentlemen from Verona is awful.

>>8644315
Everyone says this but I thought the language was still pretty great.

>>8644315
I've heard people say this before, but I'm curious about your reasoning. Personally, I didn't find it deep, but it's funny, and that's all it takes to make it fulfill its role, in my opinion, although it does set a ceiling atop its potential for "great"ness. If you're going to critique a play because it's only funny but has no depth, you're a hypocrite for not including A Midsummer Night's Dream, Love's Labour's Lost, The Merry Wives of Windsor, and The Comedy of Errors. Regardless, I'd like to hear your logic.

>>8644333
>Everyone says this
There is a reason for this.
>but I thought the language was still pretty great.
It's like saying everyone says BvS is bad but the imagery is still pretty great.

>>8644306
This assumes that the person you are saying this to is going to read every single play by him. If he starts with his first couple of plays the person is likely to think what an overrated hack and never touch him again. Not that his early plays (the Verona play excluded) are bad but if you want someone to explore a lot of Shakespeare you have to wow them. My first Shakespeare was Taming of the Shrew when I was 14 and I thought it was crap. The very next year was King Lear and I fell in love. If I had started with Two Gentlemen from Verona as an adult it probably would have put me off him for years.

>>8644364
I think this is the result of expectations. If you go into The Two Gentlemen of Verona as your first of his plays with the renown of Hamlet on your mind, then you're going to be disappointed. But if you go into it expecting a comedy by a young playwright, you'll be fine, and you'll continue to be amazed as he grows in skill and insight.

>>8644342
I disagree with the assertion that Midsummer has no depth. Outside of very particular plays (such as Hamlet for example) the philosophy of his play his is usually not terrible obvious.

I dislike Verona because I do not find it funny, in fact I found it entirely contrived. It lacks the craft that makes us admire him. All it has is some wit but I have seen 4chan posts that do that. When I read or watch it I have to hunt very hard to be amused where a good performance of Midsummer has me laughing more than I do for anything else.

>>8644372
Except everyone, EVERYONE knows Shakespeare through his reputation. Unless you live in one of those undiscovered tribes in the Americas you know that Shakespeare is basically a god in the world of literature.

>>8644378
What would you say is the depth of A Midsummer Night's Dream? It is funnier than The Two Gentlemen of Verona, but that isn't depth. The Merry Wives of Windsor is also funnier. So is The Comedy of Errors. That lends neither of them any depth.

>>8644385
This is true, but you also probably know that The Two Gentlemen of Verona is not one of his most loved plays, and probably have to time to read the Wikipedia article if you didn't already know that. If you're expecting greatness and get The Two Gentlemen of Verona instead, are you not going to be even a little curious about why your expectation was so far from met? Honestly, if you were to know so little about Shakespeare, it would be surprising for you to have even heard of The Two Gentlemen of Verona in the first place.

>>8644404
Your only defence of the play seems to be if your standards are low enough you will enjoy it. It's hardly a glowing endorsement. Very few people are going to read all or even most of his plays. It just seems weird to tell people to read his worst play first, potentially lessening the amount of plays by him they want to read. The only way I would ever suggest anyone to start with that play is if they wanted a scholarly, complete reading of him. If I were to fall and hit my head and forget everything about the play I would not be upset.

In regards to Summer. Not depth in the sense of the explicit philosophy of say Hamlet but rather the depth of a novel like Lolita. Lolita is a proud trumpet for a purely aesthetic view of literature which goes about doing this through the writing of the novel itself rather than directly implanting a philosophy into.

I find something similar with Summer except (or perhaps as well) it seems to be a play about plays. The interplay of Celtic, English, and Christian mythologies, with different sets of characters from distinctly different worlds, who have distinct ways of viewing and understanding the other groups, including (and very importantly) acting and the knowing perceiving of actors. We have actors in the play putting on a play for mythological creatures as those very same creatures unaware that they ape their audience and that their audience influences them also.

>>8644539
I'm not saying it's nearly great, just that if your expectations are "early play" and not "Hamlet", you'll enjoy it, which is basically what you said, only not so negative. If you really want to "into Shakespeare", you ought to read all his plays. It doesn't take long. If you don't really want to get into Shakespeare, you can follow the abbreviated list: King Lear, Much Ado About Nothing, Henry V, All's Well That Ends Well, The Tempest, Hamlet.

That is a good defense of A Midsummer Night's Dream. Thanks for putting thought into it.

>skipping anything written by shakespeare

wew

>>8644364
>If he starts with his first couple of plays the person is likely to think what an overrated hack and never touch him again.

Everybody knows by which plays to judge Shakespeare.

I too recommended (in the first post) that the beginner start with the early histories; they're easiest to read and they will help him get used to the language, which is the most important thing.

Hamlet might be Shakespeare's best, but the beginner won't be able to enjoy it if he struggles with the way it's written.

>>8641076
>watch a lot of Shakespeare
This is great (genuinely) if you live in one of the maybe 15-20 cities in the English-speaking world with high-quality live theater. Otherwise, you really are better off just reading them.