Complete Works of Shakespeare

Mmm look at that sexy norton

my edition of norton is beaten up, has dozens of its onion skin pages wrinkled up like a an old person's back, and has its spine nearly broken in half.

its one of my favorite things in the world and i intend to repair so i can continue perusing it for as long as possible.

Arden

>>9555273
The Arden Complete Works is just the text of the plays. It has no footnotes etc.

>>9555224

Norton every time.

For NON-complete editions: how do Norton and Arden compare?

>>9555224
I adore my Norton edition. If you like I'll take whatever pictures of it you want.

>>9555442
I personally prefer Arden, but it depends on whay you want. Do you prefer a single long, thorough introduction, plentiful of note, and some appendixes, or would you rather have a decent introduction, solid notes and a bunch of essays and responses by different authors?

Why doesn't anyone ever mention Harper Collins? It's great.

>>9555224
Norton is the way to go, but the Riverside is still the standard for academia.

What about the New Oxford? I've read from reviews that it ended up being pure pyrotechnics. Anyone here has taken a look at it?

>>9556576
Not, op but can you do a random page from Titus Andronicus and Troilus and Cressida. Curious about 'lesser' plays. Mains are often well annotated, sidepieces not so.

Get the Pelican Shakespeare.

* ~$20 cheaper
* Thick paper, not Bible paper
* Good notes

>>9556615
Sure, coming up in a minute.

>>9555224
>not buying the individual Ardens
>not wanting to have a dedicated Shakespeare Shelf

>>9556615
Sorry, I'm having trouble getting the full-resolution images from my phone to my desktop. I'm gonna try uploading directly from my phone. Sorry if these are way too big or something lol. I figured it was worth it so you could read the text clearly.

>>9555442
Arden is maximum autism. Norton every time.

File: IMG_4310.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

First page of TA introduction. 9 pages (pp. 491-500).

>>9556762
Dammit, I thought I had it flipped correctly. Anyone know how to not do this?

>>9555296
The one that I looked at was the same. New Oxford apparently is very spartan, but I've that only on words. I have Royal Shakespeare Company Complete Plays, and it's near perfect for my taste. I mostly use it only for quick reference, and it's great at that. It's play prefaces are overwritten, but they don't bother me. I love it because it's full of brief and simple annotations. Abhorable cover, and somewhat questionable design, though. Fonts are fine, it's just that they left a lot of white space for some notes or whatnot.

>>9556666
>not buying the folio letterpress collection for $15k
>not wanting a separate climate-controlled fireproof storage room for all things shakespeare
top pleb

>>9556766
It's fine, just don't do introduction next time.

>>9556776
Alright here they come.

File: IMG_4311.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>9556762

File: IMG_4313.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>9556792

File: IMG_4314.jpg (1MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x3264px

>>9556796

File: IMG_4315.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>9556800

File: IMG_4316.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>9556806

File: IMG_4318.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>9556811
(From the introduction to T&C)

File: IMG_4320.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>9556818
Selected bib for T&C (sorry, I find this stuff interesting so I'm posting it)

File: IMG_4321.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>9556823

File: IMG_4322.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>9556828

File: IMG_4323.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>9556832
Fin.

Awesome. Much appreciated.