Complete Works of Shakespeare, Best Edition?
corell...@gmail.com
I am interested in purchasing a complete, collected editon of
Shakespeare's works, and would like to know which is the best and
preferred edition amongst scholars and aficionados.
I came across an illustrated edition that I liked quite a bit, but was
concerned about the layout of the text, did not seem like the proper
format (three column format) hence did not purchase it.
Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.
spinoza1111
Please get the Oxford edition of the complete works. Harold Bloom
doesn't like it
...you know he really hates it... - the Clash, Rockin' the Casbah
which is actually a recommendation because I've learned that Harold
Bloom's books are written by anaonymous graduate students who he keeps
as slaves, and his (their) book on Shakespeare is tripe.
JPW
There is much to be said still for the Riverside; well edited
textually, good introductions to the plays, good general introduction,
contemporary documents, and the like. It avoids some of the more
controversial aspects of the Norton. I also like the "old" complete
Pelican--very easy on the eye, and nicely edited.
severdia
available. That being said, both the Arden & Bevington editions are
very strong. But it also depends on what you're looking for. The RSC
is folio only. The Arden has the glossary in the back while the
Riverside has the glossary at the bottom of each page. The RSC is
single-column and a san-serif font while most others use two columns
and a serif font. There are a bunch of variables that can determine
what is "best and preferred". There's a forum here for discussing the
diffferences in the various editions:
Peter Groves
news:1185889497.7...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I'd second that -- the Riverside is still, all things considered, the best
one-volume edition. I wouldn't bother with the Jonathan Bate one -- the man
appears incacapable of reliably distinguishing between prose and verse (I
know he didn't edit the whole thing, but he remains responsible for it).
Peter G.
corell...@gmail.com
as well as the RSC editions.
I would like an opinion about formatting of the text: Is there a
preferred format for the actual format of the text? I believe I have
read somewhere that there is a preferred format that Shakespeare's
plays should be read in, particularly when it comes to the formating
of the actual lines. Any insights are greatly appreciated.
Also, if there are any suggestions for a good illustrated edition,
that would be most appreciated.
JPW
The Riverside does have quite a number of illustrations--colour and
black and white. I'm not entirely sure what you mean about formatting.
There is some debate about how you would count half lines and such in
the line numbering of verse sections, and of course the width of the
printed column affects how prose passages are counted. Thus line
references can be slightly different between different editions
(though not by a great deal). I don't think it is of great concern for
the "average" reader. Incidentally, all but Norton are in double
columns; Norton has a single column (ie as in a normally printed
book).
JPW
http://www.jpwearing.com
Kirk McElhearn
> There is much to be said still for the Riverside; well edited
> textually, good introductions to the plays, good general introduction,
> contemporary documents, and the like. It avoids some of the more
> controversial aspects of the Norton. I also like the "old" complete
> Pelican--very easy on the eye, and nicely edited.
I'll second the Pelican recommendation. The Norton is only good if you
want to read two pages at a time (ie, the paper is too thin), and the
type is too weak.
Kirk
--
Read my blog, Kirkville
http://www.mcelhearn.com
severdia
shared lines. Most editions will have the shared lines indented the
proper amount of space to show they are shared, but some don't. The
Riverside does.
corell...@gmail.com
text. For example, when Hamlet is speaking a line, the positioning of
the text is sometimes important, as well as the italicization of
certain words i.e.
ACT 1, SCENE 2
HAMLET
[Aside] A little more than kin, and less than kind.
The asides in particular, are very important, particularly the
formatting i.e. italicization and the layout of the Act and Scene
numbers. This is what I am interested in, will look into the
editions recommended.
JPW
Your choice of example is interesting because that "aside" is indeed
an editorial addition that you won't find in every edition. By
convention, stage directions are italicized. Probably your best bet
is, indeed, to compare side-by-side- the editions that most interest
you.
Jpw
http://www.jpwearing.com
laraine
> On Jul 31, 2:25 pm, corellians...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Hello,
>
> > I am interested in purchasing a complete, collected editon of
> > Shakespeare's works, and would like to know which is the best and
> > preferred edition amongst scholars and aficionados.
>
> > I came across an illustrated edition that I liked quite a bit, but was
> > concerned about the layout of the text, did not seem like the proper
> > format (three column format) hence did not purchase it.
>
> > Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.
>
> Please get the Oxford edition of the complete works. HaroldBloom
> doesn't like it
>
> ...you know he really hates it... - the Clash, Rockin' the Casbah
>
> which is actually a recommendation because I've learned that
>who he keeps as slaves,
You believe things like that just because someone
said so? Bloom has edited a gazillion books that
are compilations of articles written by others. Possibly
it was the job of grad students to collect possible
articles for inclusion.
>and his (their) book on Shakespeare is tripe.
If you were to read it, you would discover that there
are at least one or two here, I think, who favor the
book and who could have an intelligent discussion
with you about it, but... you should know that or
at least research it.
C.
spinoza1111
> On Jul 31, 8:30 am, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 31, 2:25 pm, corellians...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Hello,
>
> > > I am interested in purchasing a complete, collected editon of
> > > Shakespeare's works, and would like to know which is the best and
> > > preferred edition amongst scholars and aficionados.
>
> > > I came across an illustrated edition that I liked quite a bit, but was
> > > concerned about the layout of the text, did not seem like the proper
> > > format (three column format) hence did not purchase it.
>
> > > Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.
>
> > Please get the Oxford edition of the complete works. HaroldBloom
> > doesn't like it
>
> > ...you know he really hates it... - the Clash, Rockin' the Casbah
>
> > which is actually a recommendation because I've learned that
> >HaroldBloom's books are written by anaonymous graduate students
> >who he keeps as slaves,
>
> You believe things like that just because someone
> said so? Bloom has edited a gazillion books that
> are compilations of articles written by others. Possibly
> it was the job of grad students to collect possible
> articles for inclusion.
>
> >and his (their) book on Shakespeare is tripe.
>
> If you were to read it, you would discover that there
I've read "Shakespeare : The Invention of the Human" and I was not
impressed.
Bloom's thesis is ethnocentric in two ways.
It is Euro-centric because it implies that without Shakespeare, a
culture is pre- or in- human. This disregards the construction of the
human found in the Analects of Kong Fu-zi, the Bhaghavad Gita, and in
oral traditions of any number of so-called primitive cultures,
constructions which often have more highly evolved ethical tradition.
And it would take a C. S. Lewis, I think, to fully show how temporally
ethnocentric Bloom is. It is fashionable to dismiss the learning and
world-view of the Middle Ages as pre-fully-human, but C. S. Lewis, who
was much more than either a Christian apologist or author of
children's books, labels his chapter (in the Cambridge multi-volume
history of English Literature) on the Tudor *KulturKampf* on Scots and
Border voices "new learning and new ignorance", because the culture
war destroyed as well as created.
*Pace* Bloom, men were fully human before Shakespeare. In fact, the
most elite/evolved characters in Shakespeare (the Duke of Athens in
Midsummer Night's, Leontes in the Winter's Tale) turn out to have
evolved into men who get their way by legal murder: Theseus threatens
Hermia with death or the convent, and Leontes is driven to homicidal
mania by mere suspicion. These characters have to learn from OLDER
traditions (the fairies, and the feminist cabal represented by
Hermione) to temper their anger: Oberon gets his way with Titania NOT
as Theseus gets his way with Hyppolyta, by war, but by playing a trick
and cuckolding himself with an ass.
Bloom's real hero becomes the man who takes what he wants: Falstaff.
But the only reason Falstaff is fully human is that he's such a coward
he will not murder, and is linked to agrarian and mediaeval traditions
in which people were better able to get along than the men of the
"gunpowder states" of the Renaissance and Reformation.
> are at least one or two here, I think, who favor the
> book and who could have an intelligent discussion
> with you about it, but... you should know that or
> at least research it.
Hmm, I've seen no signs of this in my SETI search for such a
discussion amongst the usual crap, and Phil Innes was criticised for
mentioning a better book.
Circa 1990, an American Kulturkampf was initiated, in the form of the
war against the "politically correct" against the critical public
intellectual. This coincided with the rise of monopolistic and (in
terms of America) non-critical public intellectuals including Bloom,
Camille Paglia, and Richard Posner (University of Chicago law
professor and appellate court judge).
These people gained notoriety and fame amongst the half-educated by
turning all criticism outward and away from an American government
which was internationally out of control and engaged in immiserating
80% of America's citizens. They started to criticise all that had to
do with the enthusiasms of the 1960s and a favorite gesture was
humiliating people in audiences at Borders and elsewhere with snide,
snippish, bullying and in the American register sexually exposing and
humiliating comments, which deliberately obscured the boundary between
collegial speech, and bullying (in a way aped here).
Paglia, for example, used her sexuality in a way that foreshadowed Ann
Coulter.
Bloom used academic anxiety (the anxiety felt by most people with post-
baccalaureate degrees about their employability) to force his
followers to conform to thin and predictable modes of interpretation,
making academic careerists deathly afraid of their own imagination by
speaking *ex cathedra* as if there was only one possible
interpretation.
We need only contrast Mark van Doren's collected lectures on each of
Shakespeare's plays, delivered to undergraduates at Columbia
University in the late 1930s. The tone is respectful of the students,
and Mark van Doren seems mindful of their needs above all to
understand Shakespeare.
In Bloom, the tone is contemptuous of any reader or audience member
who might have a different opinion.
>
> C.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
though I haven't read any of them), so it doesn't make any difference
which one you get--unless you want to be a Shakespeare specialist, in
which case you should get them all.
--Bob G.
spinoza1111
but.net> wrote:
> I think all the editions of Shakespeare are reasonably good (even
> though I haven't read any of them), so it doesn't make any difference
Hey, Bubba, if you haven't read "any" of them (not "all") then why the
fuck should we listen to your opinion?
I realize you are engaged in some sort of sick "substitute teacher"
game in which you actually think it's cute to know everything and read
nothing. It makes you the perfect redneck, for one thing: the American
male who controls everything and knows everything, because he cannot
admit he's wrong.
I realize that like the President you're smirking as you do so.
I think this is evil and wicked of you, since for me, evil doesn't
start in sexual behavior, it's living a lie, even with your pretense
of being an oxymoronic honest liar as in the paradox of Empedocles.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> On Aug 4, 8:44 pm, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-
>
> but.net> wrote:
> > I think all the editions of Shakespeare are reasonably good (even
> > though I haven't read any of them), so it doesn't make any difference
>
> Hey, Bubba, if you haven't read "any" of them (not "all") then why the
> fuck should we listen to your opinion?
Because, as you can't seem to understand, an opinion is of value to
the degree that it makes sense, not to the degree that the one
expressing it seems to a moron like you to have the proper
credentials. Common sense should tell someone who hasn't read any of
the Complete Shakespeares that they will contain just about everything
by Shakespeare, have a lot of standard reasonably competent commentary
(because people have been commenting on Shakespeare long enough for
even academics to have gotten him sufficiently) and be fine for anyone
wanting to read Shakespeare but not necessarily to become an expert in
his works.
Bubba
spinoza1111
but.net> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 12:27 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 4, 8:44 pm, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-
>
> > but.net> wrote:
> > > I think all the editions of Shakespeare are reasonably good (even
> > > though I haven't read any of them), so it doesn't make any difference
>
> > Hey, Bubba, if you haven't read "any" of them (not "all") then why the
> > fuck should we listen to your opinion?
>
> Because, as you can't seem to understand, an opinion is of value to
> the degree that it makes sense, not to the degree that the one
> expressing it seems to a moron like you to have the proper
> credentials.
I'm (Ah'm) not talking about cree-dentials, dawg. I'm talking about
cracking a book before you shoot your mouth off, something the
uncredentialed can do down to the public library out back the county
jail. You know where they got the county jail, I am sure that you know
the way.
> Common sense should tell someone who hasn't read any of
> the Complete Shakespeares that they will contain just about everything
> by Shakespeare, have a lot of standard reasonably competent commentary
> (because people have been commenting on Shakespeare long enough for
> even academics to have gotten him sufficiently) and be fine for anyone
> wanting to read Shakespeare but not necessarily to become an expert in
> his works.
So, if it says "Complete Shakespeare" it's jest fine? It's clear you
don't live in China, where you can buy a Complete Shakespeare to
discover a translation from a Shakespeare in Chinese back to English.
What about type size? The best edition as I have said is Oxford, but
older folks may find its two-column format hard to read.
What about varorium readings? There are two different versions of Lear
in Oxford because Wells and Taylor found that Shakespeare may have
revised the play.
What about apocrypha? Does the reader need to read The Two Noble
Kinsmen, Fletcher/Shakespeare's reading of the Palamon and Arcite tale
from Tasso that was also the Knight's Tale in Chaucer?
Huh, dawg? Huh huh huh?
Does the educated person (whether certified or self-educated) have to
read all Shakespeare plays in the first place? If Momma goes to
Border's out by WalMart, does she need to get the Oxford complete
edition, or can she buy "four great tragedies" and "four great
histories" in Penguin or Oxford editions to save money? Odds are if
her daughter Darlene, a top student, reads Lear, Hamlet, Othello,
Macbeth, Midsummer, Twelfth, Measure and Tempest, Darlene will be more
knowledgeable about Shakespeare than most rich prep school kids. No,
Darlene doesn't have to read the History plays.
STOP ANSWERING QUESTIONS without proper references and authority to
speak based on reading books.
>
> Bubba
spinoza1111
>
> > On Aug 4, 8:44 pm, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-
>
> > but.net> wrote:
> > > I think all the editions of Shakespeare are reasonably good (even
> > > though I haven't read any of them), so it doesn't make any difference
>
> > Hey, Bubba, if you haven't read "any" of them (not "all") then why the
> > fuck should we listen to your opinion?
>
> Because, as you can't seem to understand, an opinion is of value to
> the degree that it makes sense, not to the degree that the one
> expressing it seems to a moron like you to have the proper
I'll say one thing for dawg Bubba dude here. He is a tar heel, and a
stone wall who like many rednecks I have known will hold ground no
matter what.
He's generalized a partly justifiable dislike of what another dawg
Bubba, Jimbo Wales of Wikipedia, calls "credentialism", the belief
that you cannot speak without a fancy degree, into the belief that
reading books is another "credential", which it isn't.
But dawg Bubba here should try updating Wikipedia without reading and
referencing: he will be smacked down.
Reading a book takes an humility which is beyond many Amerikkkans, it
appears, and now they want to turn even this into a credential, and
then replace it by who has the louder mouth.
spinoza1111
wrote:
> "JPW" <jpwearing1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
What people are missing here is that although we know that Shakespeare
wrote "Shakespeare", there is uncertainty about the text, and there
were insertions by other hands such as the Hecate scene in Macbeth.
Since the half-educated, thrown into the job market, are unable to
deal with womanish uncertainty, they replace the uncertainty with
conspiracy theory and its certainties which are complementary to the
rejected ex-facts.
This means that the only worthwhile collected Shakespeare has to come
from the UK and not America and it has to be based on the latest
result of an ongoing, credentialed and academic project which has
found that Shakespeare revised and has used technical tools to more
precisely determine the fuzzy boundaries of "Shakespeare".
>From this research, we get Edward III, a foil to Henry V and a sketch
for same which confirms the theory that Shakespeare didn't like alpha
males very much, in the flawed and lecherous character of Edward
III...who like Henry commits a war crime still remembered by the
French, the murder of the burghers of Calais.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I merely gave an intelligent answer to see what kind of moronic
evasion you would toss at me. You ignored my argument, which was that
you don't need to read something (or have the proper credentials) to
be able to have an intelligent opinion about it. A characteristic
response of yours. Instead, you lectured me on the importance of
reading. I'm used to this--to being told I should read rather than
think--the anti-Stratfordians do it to me all the time. Oh, and
someone who wants to become familiar with Shakespeare need only do
what I suggested. Unless he wants to become an expert, which is the
only reason he'd have for caring about the apocrypha.
Bubba
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
standard way of people who are out to win arguments do--by finding
minor intances in which the argument won't hold up. But I was making
a suggestion that was common-sensically reasonable for 98% or more of
people like the one who started this thread--who can read ordinary
type, don't live in China, etc.
--Bubba, off to make a mathematical poem in the crude way all us
rednecks makes stuff like that
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
statement, which was that opinions have value to the extent that they
make sense, not to the extent someone has such credentials as college
degrees, Nobel Prizes, a high status occupation, a properly lengthy
list of certified books read, etc.
Then he did argue about the validity of my secondary statement, which
had to do with what edition of Shakespeare's complete works was best.
--Bubba, wonderin' why he's arguin' with a jackass 'stead o' hammerin'
up a new mathematical poem an' discussin' it with all his redneck pals
ceptin' only Elmer, what don't get giddy 'bout that kinda stuff like
the rest of us.
spinoza1111
Bubba Dawg, you didn't make an argument. You made a claim. An
argument, dawg, is where you (1) make a claim and (2) give reasons.
> you don't need to read something (or have the proper credentials) to
> be able to have an intelligent opinion about it. A characteristic
Not only did you not present arguments for this bizarre thesis, it's
false. If you don't read Shakespeare, you're going to have to be a
very lucky monkey at a typewriter to say something intelligent about
it.
> response of yours. Instead, you lectured me on the importance of
> reading. I'm used to this--to being told I should read rather than
> think--the anti-Stratfordians do it to me all the time. Oh, and
> someone who wants to become familiar with Shakespeare need only do
> what I suggested. Unless he wants to become an expert, which is the
> only reason he'd have for caring about the apocrypha.
>
Nobody wants to become an expert. But narcissistic people such as the
Bubba Dawg demand to be treated as the authoritative expert perhaps
because they are white Americans.
spinoza1111
There was no argument, as I have said. Only something stupid.
> standard way of people who are out to win arguments do--by finding
> minor intances in which the argument won't hold up. But I was making
> a suggestion that was common-sensically reasonable for 98% or more of
> people like the one who started this thread--who can read ordinary
> type, don't live in China, etc.
As other posters have pointed out, there is a tremendous variety of
ways of formatting Shakespeare. For example, scene divisions are a
modern innovation and they conceal the way that Shakespeare sets the
scene with words spoken by his characters.
>
> --Bubba, off to make a mathematical poem in the crude way all us
> rednecks makes stuff like that
You rednecks are crude sonsabitches and you've destroyed my country
with your shit, your fucking fantasies such as the war in Iraq and
here, your nonsense. Capice?
spinoza1111
but.net> wrote:
> Haw, I made another mistake. What Nilges did was evade my first
> statement, which was that opinions have value to the extent that they
> make sense, not to the extent someone has such credentials as college
Make sense for whom? For you?
> degrees, Nobel Prizes, a high status occupation, a properly lengthy
> list of certified books read, etc.
>
> Then he did argue about the validity of my secondary statement, which
> had to do with what edition of Shakespeare's complete works was best.
>
> --Bubba, wonderin' why he's arguin' with a jackass 'stead o' hammerin'
> up a new mathematical poem an' discussin' it with all his redneck pals
> ceptin' only Elmer, what don't get giddy 'bout that kinda stuff like
> the rest of us.
Again, I would at this point take no perverted pride in being a
redneck, Bubba Dawg. You rednecks are the problem with the USA.
spinoza1111
but.net> wrote:
> Haw, I made another mistake. What Nilges did was evade my first
> statement, which was that opinions have value to the extent that they
> make sense, not to the extent someone has such credentials as college
> degrees, Nobel Prizes, a high status occupation, a properly lengthy
> list of certified books read, etc.
In actuality, people listen to Al Einstein because he won the Nobel
prize.
You want to destroy all "certification" even self-study, and this is
absurd because it would literally require us to listen randomly and
learn randomly, giving as much attention to redneck SOBs with big
mouths as to autodidacts or professors.
>
> Then he did argue about the validity of my secondary statement, which
> had to do with what edition of Shakespeare's complete works was best.
>
> --Bubba, wonderin' why he's arguin' with a jackass 'stead o' hammerin'
> up a new mathematical poem an' discussin' it with all his redneck pals
> ceptin' only Elmer, what don't get giddy 'bout that kinda stuff like
> the rest of us.
The Dawg doesn't want to be an "expert". No, he wants merely to be
perceived as someone who can speak without authority because this is
the white man's burden. The Dawg is incurious as to what's in books,
and Job One is the Final Solution, the einsatz, the elimination of the
reflective individual who reads a book and the creation of the idiot's
Zion.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Making a suggestion is not a demand to be treated as The Authoritative
Expert. It's amusing that I, who have just told you that what counts,
for me, and sane people, is what is said, not who says it, should be
accused of possibly thinking I'm entitled to be so treated because I'm
a white American! Good grief. Of course, you have to make up
nonsense like that because you don't understand the concept of
forwarding ideas for the sake of it, not to be pack leader. When you
first started babbling about people fighting for "leadership" of HLAS,
it struck me how little ANYone has done that, including the anti-
Stratfordians--except for Mark and you. As for Michael, I haven't any
idea what he's doing.
--Bubba
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Oh, and I certainly did present an argument--like Crowley, you have
your own idea of what an argument is. Your (implicit) argument was
that I could not advise on Shakespeare collections without reading
them, my argument back was that what counted was the value of what I
said not my background. You, amazingly, seem not to understand this.
I'm here because I'm trying to mow my lawn and my mower overheated, so
I have to kill time till it cools off and I can finish the lawn. In
case anyone sane is reading this and curious.
--Bubba
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
certification presented as an ad hominem argument for the validity of
some opinion one holds, or lack of certification presented as an ad
hominem argument against the validity of some opinion someone one
disagrees with holds. Capice?
Okay, gotta finish the lawn (really), then work on my mathematical
poem. Probably won't be sucked into vainly trying to counter your
misrepresentations, deceptions and other crap again.
Ooops, I was replying to the post one above the one above this, so I
missed the part about my wanting to eliminate the reflective
individual, etc. Weird how the more you argue against this character,
the closer he comes to defining you as maximally evil. But, hey, I
took them there tacks outta my cat.
--Bubba
spinoza1111
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bubba Dawg, I am familiar with the concept of denial, for I have
discovered through experience how good old boys and hairy hippies use
their good oldness and hirsuitability to conceal the old rage, to be
master, that's all. You want to win this shootin' match, hoss pard
dawg, but you are outgunned. I mean, Santa Ana and Sitting Bull are
here, or as Pistol said, have we not Hiren here.
Really, you made a foolish statement. You told the OP to go get
hisself any old collected edition of Shakespeare. I mean, interpreted
literally, he could get a gag edition labeled "The Collected Works of
William Shakespeare" only to find pornography, bound in a misleading
cover. Interpreted more narrowly, there are all sorts of used and out
of print editions which are completely useless in that they include
varorium readings and stuff from the Bad quarto of Hamlet.
spinoza1111
but.net> wrote:
> Oh, and I certainly did present an argument--like Crowley, you have
> your own idea of what an argument is. Your (implicit) argument was
No, hoss pard bubba the Dawg, I studied traditional and modern logic
at an advanced level and then taught it at university level. Sorry,
pard bubba, but this isn't "certificationalism": that's complete, or
nearly 100% reliance on pieces of academic sheep skin which say "this
here is a good Injun who takes a bath oncet a year whether he needs it
or not, and he has been given a dee-gree from East Jesus Univarsitee".
I was selected upon receiving my BA, not my MA or PhD, to teach Logic
by the philosophy department head because I was as the dove, the
wrathful dove, that troops among the crows, and was QUALIFIED.
Your false and phony "democracy" is mobocracy.
> that I could not advise on Shakespeare collections without reading
> them, my argument back was that what counted was the value of what I
> said not my background. You, amazingly, seem not to understand this.
OK, whatchoo said, dawg, was what counted and what counts. The problem
that whatchoo said was completely useless garbage, it wuz, "go on down
to de Borders out by the John Deere and buy any old edition." Now, if
Doreen is reading this, you know that gal gonna buy the cheapest
edition at Borders, 'specially if old Jeff is late again with the
support check. But this may be an edition with small or poorly laid
out type, or it may not contain current research as to what
Shakespeare wrote, rendering Doreen's little Lulu Mae the
laughingstock at University of Texas at Austin DESPITE Lulu Mae's
straight A average at high school.
>
> I'm here because I'm trying to mow my lawn and my mower overheated, so
> I have to kill time till it cools off and I can finish the lawn. In
> case anyone sane is reading this and curious.
Well, you get out there and boogie down, mow that lawn, for it is
written, all flesh is as grass, pard dawg Bubba.
>
> --Bubba
spinoza1111
Whoa, pard, you want to get back to the a-word, then flyin A better
watch your self.
> certification presented as an ad hominem argument for the validity of
> some opinion one holds, or lack of certification presented as an ad
> hominem argument against the validity of some opinion someone one
> disagrees with holds. Capice?
The problem, hoss pard Bubba dawg, is that "having done read the book"
ISN'T certification!
Basically, you want ALL actions taken in the material world to be some
form of certification, whereas in your philosophy, only a pure (or
reinen) and innocent act of will that produces a text that seems to a
sort of invisible congress of flaming red necks to "make sense" in
some inexpressible way can be accepted by the boys.
The psychology that can produce this tragic reduction to absurdity is
common enough not only in redneck land but also in the American
government and corporation.
When asked to make sense by reporters, Donald Rumsfeld used
essentially the same appeal to unreason. It was axiomatic, and
unquestionable, to that asshole that Coach (the President) had set the
course, and owing to the very real weakness of a seriously weakened
American rich kid psyche, there could be no diversion from the foolish
course taken.
The psychology was Johnny Reb, tar heel and stone wall.
Thus Rumsfeld likewise insisted on nonsensical private interpretations
of what it meant to go to war, and got a hell of a lot of people
killed.
>
> Okay, gotta finish the lawn (really), then work on my mathematical
> poem. Probably won't be sucked into vainly trying to counter your
> misrepresentations, deceptions and other crap again.
A mathematical poem. How deep. Well, rotsa ruck, Lawnmower Boy.
One and one and one is two
Darlin, I cain't do arithmetic
But I shore do love you
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> > your own idea of what an argument is. Your (implicit) argument was
>
> No, hoss pard bubba the Dawg, I studied traditional and modern logic
> at an advanced level and then taught it at university level. Sorry,
> pard bubba, but this isn't "certificationalism": that's complete, or
> nearly 100% reliance on pieces of academic sheep skin which say "this
> here is a good Injun who takes a bath oncet a year whether he needs it
> or not, and he has been given a dee-gree from East Jesus Univarsitee".
> I was selected upon receiving my BA, not my MA or PhD, to teach Logic
> by the philosophy department head because I was as the dove, the
> wrathful dove, that troops among the crows, and was QUALIFIED.
Exactly. A moron certified you. That you are unable to practice
logic is clear from everything you write here.
> Your false and phony "democracy" is mobocracy.
You see? Jumping to a false generality (from, I should add, a false
reading of various things I've said): "my" democracy, although I am a
near-total elitist.
> > that I could not advise on Shakespeare collections without reading
> > them, my argument back was that what counted was the value of what I
> > said not my background. You, amazingly, seem not to understand this.
>
> OK, whatchoo said, dawg, was what counted and what counts. The problem
> that whatchoo said was completely useless garbage, it wuz, "go on down
> to de Borders out by the John Deere and buy any old edition."
Absolutely. Because, as I also said, Shakespeare editions have been
around for over three hundred years now--long enough for the
mediocrities continuing to publish them to have them sufficiently
right--except for someone wanting to be an expert.
> Now, if
> Doreen is reading this, you know that gal gonna buy the cheapest
> edition at Borders, 'specially if old Jeff is late again with the
> support check.
No, Doreen will go to the Good Will store and pick of a 1920 edition
and do just fine with it.
> But this may be an edition with small or poorly laid
> out type, or it may not contain current research as to what
> Shakespeare wrote, rendering Doreen's little Lulu Mae the
> laughingstock at University of Texas at Austin DESPITE Lulu Mae's
> straight A average at high school.
You only see that I am arguing against you, so you misread what I say
in such a way as to allow you to make hopeless inept "satirical"
misrepresentations of me like the above--crammed with crap from your
rigidniplex about the horrors of capitalism, reverse sexism, racism,
grammatical or semantic solecisms, eurocentrism, and who knows what
else.
--Bubba
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> > poem. Probably won't be sucked into vainly trying to counter your
> > misrepresentations, deceptions and other crap again.
I was sucked in again. See above.
> A mathematical poem. How deep. Well, rotsa ruck, Lawnmower Boy.
This really is my last post against your crap, asshole. I mentioned
the mathematical poem to give you a little hint that maybe I'm not a
pure redneck. I guess it went over your head.
--the IPSST
spinoza1111
but.net> wrote:
> > > Oh, and I certainly did present an argument--like Crowley, you have
> > > your own idea of what an argument is. Your (implicit) argument was
>
> > No, hoss pard bubba the Dawg, I studied traditional and modern logic
> > at an advanced level and then taught it at university level. Sorry,
> > pard bubba, but this isn't "certificationalism": that's complete, or
> > nearly 100% reliance on pieces of academic sheep skin which say "this
> > here is a good Injun who takes a bath oncet a year whether he needs it
> > or not, and he has been given a dee-gree from East Jesus Univarsitee".
> > I was selected upon receiving my BA, not my MA or PhD, to teach Logic
> > by the philosophy department head because I was as the dove, the
> > wrathful dove, that troops among the crows, and was QUALIFIED.
>
> Exactly. A moron certified you. That you are unable to practice
> logic is clear from everything you write here.
I think you have no credibility, dawg. You call a statement an
argument. But a statement, especially one so unhelpful as "any
collected works of Shakespeare will do" unsupported by anything but
empty phrases such as "makes sense", is not even an invalid argument.
You're a poor loser, Bubba, and an American fascist.
>
> > Your false and phony "democracy" is mobocracy.
>
> You see? Jumping to a false generality (from, I should add, a false
> reading of various things I've said): "my" democracy, although I am a
> near-total elitist.
Sure, in a maddened mob which is what democracy in America has
descended to, every man is a legend in his own mind.
>
> > > that I could not advise on Shakespeare collections without reading
> > > them, my argument back was that what counted was the value of what I
> > > said not my background. You, amazingly, seem not to understand this.
>
> > OK, whatchoo said, dawg, was what counted and what counts. The problem
> > that whatchoo said was completely useless garbage, it wuz, "go on down
> > to de Borders out by the John Deere and buy any old edition."
>
> Absolutely. Because, as I also said, Shakespeare editions have been
> around for over three hundred years now--long enough for the
> mediocrities continuing to publish them to have them sufficiently
> right--except for someone wanting to be an expert.
This is the first time you've argued for your thesis and you are
wrong. New forms of textual research and interpretive insight have
discovered, for example, that Edward III should be treated as
canonical. Therefore, a collected edition not including this play or
the revision of Lear is useless.
>
> > Now, if
> > Doreen is reading this, you know that gal gonna buy the cheapest
> > edition at Borders, 'specially if old Jeff is late again with the
> > support check.
>
> No, Doreen will go to the Good Will store and pick of a 1920 edition
> and do just fine with it.
No, she will not. She will be led to imagine that Shakespeare divided
acts into distinct scenes when in fact many of the scenes were added
by editors. The prefaces and commentaries will be jingoistic in the
case of Henry V and racist in the case of Othello.
>
> > But this may be an edition with small or poorly laid
> > out type, or it may not contain current research as to what
> > Shakespeare wrote, rendering Doreen's little Lulu Mae the
> > laughingstock at University of Texas at Austin DESPITE Lulu Mae's
> > straight A average at high school.
>
> You only see that I am arguing against you, so you misread what I say
> in such a way as to allow you to make hopeless inept "satirical"
> misrepresentations of me like the above--crammed with crap from your
> rigidniplex about the horrors of capitalism, reverse sexism, racism,
> grammatical or semantic solecisms, eurocentrism, and who knows what
> else.
Yeah, Bubba hoss pard dawg, purty near everything you stand for. I
don't like you. I don't like you arrogant ignorance. I think you
should leave this group.
>
> --Bubba
spinoza1111
I don't CARE about your mathematical poem, Bubba hoss pard asshole
dude. You Southern boys are forever yapping to whoever will listen
about all that culture y'all got down there just as neo-Secesh
apologists claim, in the recent film Gods and Generals, that the South
was fixin' to free the slaves ... a lie, because the CSA constitution
forbad emancipation of the African slaves.
The Union should have let you boys go in 1860 to form your own slave-
owning oligarchy where you could tell each other how genteel you all
are as you whup the darkies. Over the last twenty years Southerners
have RUINED the United States, lost a war owing to Southern domination
of the armed forces, and shitcanned a city because the white boys
could get out of New Orleans and the darkies had to stay.
Reynhardt Heydrich, Nazi *gauleiter* and author of the Holocaust,
listened to Bach and Schubert. Hitler loved Wagner. Your pretense at
culture is completely bogus.
REAL southern writers hated the South and either got the hell out,
like Truman Capote, or lived in university towns, as Faulkner lived in
Oxford MS. And they DIDN'T say idiotic things such as you don't have
to read books.
You all git now and mow that damn lawn or old Doreen is gonna pitch a
fit.
spinoza1111
> Hello,
>
> I am interested in purchasing a complete, collected editon of
> Shakespeare's works, and would like to know which is the best and
> preferred edition amongst scholars and aficionados.
>
> I came across an illustrated edition that I liked quite a bit, but was
> concerned about the layout of the text, did not seem like the proper
> format (three column format) hence did not purchase it.
>
> Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.
Also consider collecting all the BBC Shakespeare plays on video, first
issued in the late 1970s and early 1990s and now on DVD. Hard to get,
however. The complete collection seems not to be available on Amazon
although subsets are. Here in Hong Kong, these plays are mostly
available at HIV I mean ha ha HMV Records but in East Asian "format".
My public library back home in the USA had almost the complete
collection. These plays are uncut, played "straight" (no modern
dress).
The best play in the series may be Othello with Anthony Hopkins as the
Moor and Bob Hoskins (Smee in the movie Hook) as Iago.
Watching Shakespeare doesn't replace reading the text but is excellent
preparation.