The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (Special Editions)

The binding is strong, the print is small and reading will be suitable for such a book.

With such a price bracket and you are looking for William Shakespeare works then this is the book to buy. absolutely awesome

good one and mixed of old English version very useful for book readers and teachers Who love shakespeare collection books

This volume is a special volume, and it indeed contains the complete works of Shakespeare; it is a fantastic buy for any literature lover. Don't have doubts regarding the contents. They're authentic and original. Go for it if you want a complete collection of all the poetry, the sonnets, the comedies, the tragedies, and the history plays. Beautiful indeed.

It is not fancy or anything, the page quality is just fine. But i guess at this price the entire works of Shakespeare is fine. I would keep it until i can get enough money to buy a fancy hard cover one.

Amazing collection. Worth the price. Fonts are small but are readable.

The font is a little tiny but still a great book.

Nice printing, all in one copy and value for money.

この本2キロばかりあるんです。ペーパーバックなんですけど、めっちゃ重いんです。だから鞄に入れて持って歩くのは、諦めました。 机に広げてゆっくり読みます。ソネットも戯曲も、コーヒー片手に辞書を反対に持って、ゆっくり。 お気に入りの役者が頭の中で誰かを演じて、一つの壮大な舞台が繰り広げられていきます。 蜷川幸雄さんも、こうしてシェイクスピアを読まれたのかなあ、勝手に想像します。 贅沢な時間をくれる一冊です。 買ってよかったと思ってます。

Tolles kompaktes Werk leider in sehr kleiner Schrift. War ein Geschenk und löste Begeisterung aus.

I posted these comments in response to one of amazon's top 500 reviewers whose review can basically be summed up as "Shakespeare is old hat, I don't like him, and therefore he deserves to be forgotten." Since I have seen other reviews of Shakespeare on amazon that take the form of "Shakespeare? Yecch. Now, Top Gun, that's something worth seeing!," I thought I would post these comments as their own review. Just writing these comments has rekindled my enthusiasm for the great Bard, not that it needed rekindling. By the way, I think this edition, as several have pointed out, has a real place on the bookshelf of the Shakespeare lover. One way I enjoy reading Shakespeare is while following along with a recording, of which fortunately there have been many good ones, going back at least as far as the wonderful Argo series back in the 1950s and 1960s, and completed in time for the 400th anniversary of the Bard's birth in 1964. When following with an annotated edition, I am way too tempted to keep checking the notes. When following with this or another bare-bones text, the temptation is automatically gone. Now, on to my comment: I deleted my original comments some time ago, having realized that I couldn't respond to Jmark's lengthy remarks about Shakespeare in just a few pithy words, and so I only ended up misrepresenting myself and Shakespeare (not that he needs me to defend him). I resolved to make a lengthier, more reasoned, and less personal response to Jmark's diatribe at a future date. Having re-read Jmark's review and his responses to my remarks, and deduced what I must have originally said in the comments I deleted, I still am of the opinion that his arguments don't hold water. His essential argument is that "I don't like Shakespeare and therefore he deserves to be relegated to the trash heap." Certainly Jmark is entitled not to like Shakespeare, just as I am entitled not to like Michael Jackson; it's the "therefore" part that makes no sense. To answer his assertions one by one: 1) If Shakespeare were not a vital author, nobody past the age of being influenced by the educational system would pay any attention to him. Certainly he would have been forgotten ages ago since the teachers who had been forced to read him when going through the deluded educational system would have rebelled against the idea of teaching such claptrap when they joined that system. 2) "Silly romances," "boring dramas," "improbable plots," "vulgar jokes" are all value judgments and relate back to Jmark's "I don't like Shakespeare" thesis (well, some of the jokes *are* pretty vulgar). If Jmark finds the romances silly and the dramas boring, he certainly has a right to. I doubt I've ever judged a play, movie, opera, etc. (especially opera) on the probability of its plot. I love Crank also and it's probably fairly improbable, although I don't expect folks to be watching Crank 400 years from now, assuming that civilization hasn't self-destructed by then; as for Crank 2, well once was enough given the level of its violence. I look at how well the story is told; Jmark and I will have to agree to disagree on this one. 3) Actually, the "nuts" do get to have it both ways. On the one hand, Shakespeare does deserve to be approached with a certain degree of reverence, which doesn't take Jmark's comments about "no one must dare question" out of the realm of hyperbole. And on the other hand, the plays themselves *are* entertaining, enormously so. As two examples, and these from a couple of the lesser-known plays, I offer the scenes in Much Ado About Nothing where Beatrice and Benedict are tricked into believing that the other is in love with her/him or the ending of the Cymbeline where all the plot twists are more or less straightened out to the hilarity of the audience; actually, these are both pretty improbable which doesn't take away from their entertainment value. I have kept to comic scenes here, although Cymbeline is usually classed among the tragedies or more recently among a new genre called the romances. It would be just as easy to find entertaining scenes among the tragedies or the histories, and I'll let each person do that for him- or herself. Actually, the comparison with Crank 2 is not completely off the wall; Titus Andronicus is at least as violent as Crank, but Shakespeare's poetry and the strength of some of the characterizations raise the play way above the level of Crank 2. 4) The comparison with Beowulf is patently unfair. When reading Beowulf, one would need to have a glossary of every word in order to make sense of it at all. In Shakespeare, only some words need to be glossed and, with a little experience, one will not need to check all of the glosses because a lot of the phrases and constructions are used over and over again. Likewise, most members of a Shakespeare audience will not have read the play in advance; it doesn't matter because, with a little attention, one can follow the story even without understanding every single word because the inflections of the actors and the stage business make it clear and carry the viewer along. The same could not be said of a performer presenting Beowulf in the original English. 5) The "intriguing" and "entertaining" arguments are once again personal opinons. However, looking through Jmark's other reviews, I can see that he is mostly into relatively modern stuff. I think we can easily take his opinion about Shakespeare with a grain of salt, given his comments about "what was entertaining even twenty years ago" and "last year's fashions"; old = bad, new = good (except when what is new gets to be twenty years old and then it = bad as well). And finally, I would love to see Shakespeare "freed from the support of the educational system," just so I could watch him still be considered one of the most vibrant authors (yes, my opinion, just as Jmark believes just the opposite). And I'll leave out Shakespeare's influence on more modern authors. I've probably spent way too much time responding to this post. I will not be doing a follow-up, even if Jmark responds. My intent in responding was to defend my beloved Shakespeare whom I discovered several years before I even reached high school and so my admiration of him has nothing to do with what the academics think.

Finally saw the nutters face. Mint quality ...It's worth it for begginers :p I'm doubtful about that face design though... I'm no mum of his or God (forgiveness seeking 4 being pushed to think so ludacris, amen) but that face is just harsh, in the reality of equality during his time. Although, he is much pleasing to the eye in Gonzo's Romeo and Juliette. Gonzo Romeo and Juliette which depicts a forward rapist Romeo and Juliette adaptation and so I think Shakespheare fits the face of a rapist during that time; clever Gonzo adaptation! Not much originality in judging people who are famous. Ah touchey!