What is the best way to read older texts/translations, where

>>9548520
Any suggestions?

>>9548520
Get one with annotations. You'll be good without them after reading 2 or 3 plays.

Practice. Slow down and pay attention. Read aloud if it helps.

>>9548520
Google anything you don't understand, or use an annotated text if you prefer that.
Even the greatest scholars had to consult a teacher or a dictionary the first time they came across the word petard.

>>9548716
What's a good publisher for annotated versions?

>>9548520
both.

notes, plus Cliff Notes (or whatever handy guide comes your way).

but you'll need multiple rereadings and some effort.

well rewarding though.

>>9548753
Anyone have suggestions?

>>9549860
Folger works. Like >>9548716 said, you can read a non-annotated play just fine after reading 2-3 plays.

Hey man, you seem intelligent enough. Aim for the Oxford or the Arden--these are /lit/'s fave publishers for Bill. I'm partial to the Oxford for its criticism and aesthetically it's a better looking book.

You won't need to worry about annotations in general, the most helpful will be an obscure reference explained or an unknown word explained. You'll get used to the other stuff (e.g. Five Temperaments, 17th century historic references, references to the bible and Ovid's Metamorphoses).

Seriously, don't be afraid to pick up a Shakespeare play. Try out Julius Caesar, The Merchant of Venice, Othello. You'll do fine. The language takes a few verses to get used to and it may take a minute for you to establish the characters' relations but other than that it will start to click. It's the same English we speak (early Modern English vs Modern English), just in its incipient form and of a high but often bawdy nature.

Pay attention to characters' soliloquies--these are widely known to be when characters' motivations, thoughts, or emotions change. They reflect upon their circumstances and effect a change in themselves.

>>9550183
>I'm partial to the Oxford for its criticism and aesthetically it's a better looking book.

What would Oxford have that, say, Folger would not have? I'm not sure exactly what I'm looking for in regards to the extra stuff than just the play.

>>9550222
Oxford is probably the most meticulous. There's typically an introduction to the text detailing the themes and production, then a history of the text within the folios and the minutiae of that, the play itself, then source material, and then line by line lineation showing any alterations to the original text to improve clarity, then maybe someone in there an essay on one of the lenses through which to read the play.

You're probably only going to be reading a fraction of that, sometimes only the play itself.

You're really overthinking this man, that was my main point I didn't convey effectively enough. As long as it has a minimal amount of annotation--really just definitions for obscure, antiquated words--you're golden.