Which Shakespeare? And Why?

Some thoughts on just a few of the different versions of Shakespeare available out there. Which is best for you depends a lot on your purpose for reading Shakespeare and what you like.
Editions shown:
RSC Complete Works (2007 Edition)
Arden Shakespeare Series 2
Arden Shakespeare Series 3
Arden Performance Edition
Spark Notes No Fear Shakespeare
COFFEE and PATREON:
/ hakonsoreide
www.buymeacoffee.com/hakon
ko-fi.com/hakonsoreide
If my channel ever inspires you to buy any audio gear, please consider getting it from THOMANN. If you visit them through this link, it makes me a little bit at no extra cost to you:
www.thomann.de/de/index.html?...
Also consider buying a piece of music, or an art print to support my work:
MUSIC: hakon1.bandcamp.com/
ART: fineartamerica.com/profiles/1...
#Shakespeare #Literature #English

[@1965zimmy]

I love the performance editions from Arden. I wish more plays were available in these versions.

[@hakonsoreide]

Thanks for your comment. Yes, they are indeed great for relaxed reading and basic study of the plays. I believe it's been a few years now since the last one came out. Three came out October 2017, followed by one Jan 2018, July 2018, Jul 2019, Apr 2020, two in Oct 2021, and the last in April 2022. It's a bit hard to say with that publishing schedule what else they might have planned. They have certainly already covered what might the the most prominent and popular plays, but it seems a relatively light editorial task to publish further volumes in the series, so I hope they add more to it.

[@nivi]

I’m glad you mentioned No Fear. The best way to get started.

[@hakonsoreide]

Thanks. Yes, one of the reasons I wanted to make this video was specifically to point out some of the great things about No Fear as well as mention some of the unhelpful snobbery directed towards it.

[@AlanSnackbarTheChipShopChipper]

What a wonderful idea to have different types of a certain play so you can come at them from different angles. So far I have just the Arden Series 3 version of Hamlet and a rather squashed together version of the complete works by Barnes & Noble, but the RSC Complete Works looks incredibly pleasing to look at and to read just for pleasure and to, as you say, only have the essentials explained at the bottom so it does not get too much in the way of the text unlike the Arden which usually takes up more space explaining than it gives room for the actual text. But that is clearly by design and the Arden is an invaluable resource precisely for this, along with the essays on the text. I also completely agree with you regarding the Spark Notes edition of the plays. Of course the modernisation/translation of the text may erase the lyrical power and certain meanings of the original but it is not meant to be a replacement for the text, merely a way of understanding what was written. Once it is understood then reading the original text will prove to be an even more rewarding experience. To me, the Spark Notes edition is like a pre-reading of Shakespeare, learning to walk before you can run with the best of them. Another valuable resource. Thank you for the video.

[@hakonsoreide]

Thanks for watching, and for sharing your thoughts on the subject too. I've been reading a few more of the Arden Performance editions, and they have one major drawback (and also a pet peeve of mine), which is that the editors of the ones I've read so far don't fully understand Shakespeare's intended poetic rhythm, frequently indicating anapests where none exist, and failing to see that there are common denominators between the lines with imagined anapests that could have given them a clue as to why it's not the case. For instance, typesetters in Shakespeare's day would write out "I am" when it clearly is meant to be pronounced "I'm", and every 17th Century performer would know that "upon" was usually pronounced "pon", but it seems current editors of Shakespeare haven't picked up on it yet. I guess this is what happens when literature analysts aren't poets themselves, or at least not lyrical poets. The weird 20th century obsession with judging lyrical poetry as second-rate to freer styles means there have been a few generations of literary critics now who no longer understand how it actually works. That said, in modern performance, it is common to break the intended rhythm of Shakespeare's lines, allowing the actor to decide which words to emphasise in the line in order to best communicate the meaning of the text and the motivation of their characters as they themselves interpret it. There are some more poetic sections, however, soliloquies particularly, or very formal tone speech, where Shakespeare's rhythm is very important to understand as knowing the intended emphasised words will also provide meaning and subtext.

[@AlanSnackbarTheChipShopChipper]

@@hakonsoreide Ah, this is very useful to know, thank you.

[@andrewanderson3746]

@@hakonsoreide That's interesting. Which versions of Shakespeare would you say manage to keep the original integrity of his poetic cadence in tact?

[@jacky1032]

Which version do you think is the best for the book Richard III?🙂

[@hakonsoreide]

As I point out in my video, that depends entirely on what your purpose and aim is for reading it, whether it is for enjoyment, in-depth study, or in preparation of theatrical performance. I don't have any single-edition Richard III books, so in my case, I'd read it for enjoyment, and since there is no Arden Performance edition for the play, I would read it from my collected works which has the necessary notes for me. If I were to study the text, subtext and context more deeply, I'd get the Arden third series book of the play, and if had still struggled a bit with Shakespeare's language, often finding it a bit obscure and hard to decipher, I'd start with the No Fear Shakespeare version. Another thing I always do when approaching a new Shakespeare play is find an audio drama version of it I can listen to. I usually listen to it first, then read it, then listen again. For plays I really like, like Hamlet and Macbeth, I often find different versions as I enjoy the differences in performance and how different actors use different emphasis to bring out different aspects of the characters and their actions.

[@Alexander_Scott]

Based on your accent and your name I assume english isn't your native tounge, I'm curious as to how translations of Shakes' work are like in your country? Of course some things will be lost as with any translation. It especially must be interesting it being Early Modern English and how that must translate

[@hakonsoreide]

You are indeed right that English is not my native language. I am Norwegian, and I started learning English in school at age 10 like everyone else. When it comes to Norwegian translations of Shakespeare, I've not read any - at least not yet - though I did see an excellent production of Twelfth Night at the theatre when I studied English. The thing about Norwegian translations of Shakespeare is that there is no impetus to maintain them as Norwegian was at Shakespeare's time, which of course would have been Danish, and so all translations are also modernisations of their own time. Anything available is all mid to late 20th Century in language and style, unlike Shakespeare in English which is modernised in spelling only and has pretty much remained the same since the 18th Century. The most canonical versions in Norwegian were translated in the 60's and 70's by one of my favourite poets, André Bjerke, whose translation of Goethe's Faust is amazing, and I can imagine his Shakespeare is of an equally high standard. While my level of German proficiency is such that I would read a translation of a German work, once I started reading English language fiction at around the age of 15, it would have felt strange to me to read anything originally written in English in any other language, Shakespeare included. So, I don't really know how it reads compared to the original, but I probably should get a few of my favourite Shakespeare plays in Norwegian for comparison some day. I know there are more modern translations from after Bjerke's time too, but when I write anything slightly elevated myself, I tend to gravitate towards the same mid-century style of conservative Norwegian that he was a proponent for, and I think it far better suited for poetical works like Shakespeare than anything more modernised. I'm sure they are good in their way, but the more old-fashioned style would be more to my taste. Regardless of version, I foresee there would be a lot of things lost in translation. Shakespeare is absolutely chock full of wordplay, sometimes with both double and even triple entendres that don't even translate into modernised English, far less into another language. The poetical effect of the difference in expression, words that by now have changed meaning or pronunciation, are also aspects of Shakespeare as we experience it today that would be nullified by a translation into antother language, including into present-day English.