One of his lesser known works, Shakespeare's Trojan play is also one of his most intriguing. Not quite a burlesque, 'Troilus and Cressida''s lurches in tone, from farce to historical drama to romance to tragedy, and its blurring of these modes, explains why generations of critics and audiences have found it so unsatisfying, and why today it can seem so modern. Its disenchanted tone, its interest in the baser human instincts underlying (classical) heroism look forward to such 20th century works as Giraudoux's 'The Trojan War Will Not Take Place' or Terry Jones' 'Chaucer's Knight'; the aristocratic ideals of Love and War, inextricably linked in this play, are debased by the merchant-class language of exchange, trade, food, possesion - the passionate affair at its centre is organised by the man who gave his name to pimps, Pandarus, and is more concerned with immediate sexual gratification than anything transcendental. The Siege of Troy sequences are full of the elaborately formal rhetoric we expect from Shakespeare's history plays, but well-wrought diplomacy masks ignoble trickery; the great heroes Ajax and Achilles are petulant egotists, the latter preferring the company of his catamite to combat; the actual war sequences, when they finally come, are a breathless farce of exits and entrances. There are a lot of words in this play, but very few deeds.

Paris, Prince of Troy, has abducted Helen, wife of Menelaus, King of Sparta. Led by the latter's brother Agamemnon, and his Machiavellian advisors Ulysses and Nestor, the Greeks besiege Troy, demanding the return of Helen. However, Achilles' dissatisfaction at the generals' endless politicking has spread discontent in the ranks. Within Troy, war takes a distinct second place to matters of the heart. While Paris wallows in luxury with his prize, his youngest brother Troilus uses Pandarus as a go-between to arrange a night of love with his niece, Cressida. When one of the Trojan leaders is taken prisoner by the Greeks, the ransom price is Cressida.

There is only one character in 'Troilus' who can be said to be at all noble and not self-interested, the eldest Trojan prince Hector, who, despite his odd interpreation of the quality 'honour', detests a meaningless war, and tries to spare as many of his enemies' lives as he can. He is clearly an anachronism, however, and his ignoble slaughter at the hands of a brutal gang suggests what price chivalry. Perhaps the most recognisable character is Thirsitis, the most savagely cynical of his great Fools. Imagine Falstaff without the redeeming lovability - he divests heroes and events of their false values, satirises motivations, abuses his dim-witted 'betters' and tries to preserve his life at any cost. Written in between 'Hamlet' and 'All's Well That Ends Well', 'Troilus' bears all the marks of Shakespeare's mid-period: the contrapuntal structure, the dense figures, the audacious neologisms, and the intitially deferred, accelerated action. If some of the diplomacy scenes are too efective in their parodic pastiche of classical rhetoric, and slow things down, Act 5 is an amazing dramatic rush, crowning the play's disenchantment with love (with an extraordinarily creepy three-way spaying of an infidelity) and war.

The New Penguin Shakespeare is the most accessible and user-friendly edition for students and the general reader (although it does need updating). Unlike the Oxford or Arden series, which offer unwieldy introductions (yawning with irrelevant conjecture about dates and sources) and unusable notes (clotted with tedious pedantry more concerned with fighting previous commentators than elucidating Shakespeare), the Penguin's format offers a clear Introduction dealing with the play and its contexts, an appendix 'An Account of the Text', and functional endnotes that gloss unfamiliar words and difficult passages. The Introduction is untainted by fashions in Critical Theory, but is particularly good at explaining the role of Time ('When time is old and hath forgot itself...And blind oblivion swallowed cities up'), the shifting structure, the multiple viewpoints in presenting characters, and Shakespeare's use of different literary and linguistic registers.

Troilus and Cressida is one of Shakespear`s many romances, and, like most of his romances, is a tragedy. Since time immemorial, Shakespears` works have been used as plays, literature and (least often) just casual reading. While Troilus and Cressida is one of the less known plays, it is no less a good one. It is based in Troy(as the name might imply)during the much renowned Trojan War. The valiant Troilus, son of the Trojan king is enamoured of Cressida, also of Troy. Meanwhile, the Greek hosts have laid siege to the city, and the warrior Achilles refuses to fight, encouraging further interaction between the two sides. Cressida, however, is the daughter of a Greek sympathizer(if that is the correct word)and may not be able to honour her commitment to the Trojan prince...

I think this is one os Shakespeare's most underrated plays, probably because of all the uncouth characters. Based on Chaucer's rendition of the story, T and C are Trojan lovers, and she is then traded to the Greeks in exchange for captive soldiers. Aside from this, the women of Troy are wanton and lustful, and the men are prowess driven. If you can deal with this, you will really enjoy Shakespeare's ability to wrap this into all kinds of twists and turns. It delivers a mixture of satire, comedy, romance, tragedy, and a semi-historical (in that people at the time probably believed the Trojan War really happened). Interestingly, this mixture of laughs and tragedy is reminiscent of war novels I have read about Vietnam. The romantic dimensions give this play its edge, and somehow WS manages to make it plausible in spite of all the killing and deceit going on at the same time.

The play goes along very similar lines as that of the shakespear play measure for measure as both show selfabsorbtion is a paramount factor though it does seem like a rewrite is does has its own high points especially Mosca a very funny character.

I had expected Jonson's plays to be difficult and certainly less rewarding than Shakespeare. Surprisingly, despite the passage of four centuries, the humor in "Volpone" remains natural and entertaining today. I have now read several other comedies by Ben Jonson, but "Volpone" remains my favorite.

I did have difficulty getting started with "Volpone". The rather long dedication, the argument, and the prologue all took their toll. To make matters worse, I was completely confused and lost in Act One, Scene One, by a "Pythagorean satire", entertainment provided by Volpone's eccentric servants, Mosca, Nano, Andrrogyno, and Castrone. (I later learned that Jonson may have added this literary satire for special performances at Oxford and Cambridge. Apparently Jonson knew his scholars well, as "Volpone" was well-received at both universities.)

Fortunately, Scene One is not representative of the play, and I had little difficulty thereafter with either the plot or the humor. Unlike Shakespeare, Ben Jonson's characters seldom reflect on their motivations in soliloquies or insightful dialogue. We meet characters without great complexity. Once we know them, we find that they remain in character and behave predictably. This does not mean his characters are shallow or uninteresting. I even found myself somewhat sympathetic for the unscrupulous Volpone, Mosca, Voltore, Corbaccio, and Corvino. They are all villains, just not particularly villainous villains.

Even though the characters behave predictably, the plot is anything but predictable. The confusion builds throughout the play and I had no idea how Jonson was going to resolve the situation in Act Five. I quite enjoyed "Volpone" and I would like to have an opportunity to see it on stage someday.

I did find one aspect of "Volpone" to be disconcerting. I was taken aback by Volpone's house servants, the dwarf Nano, the eunuch Castrone, and the hermaphrodite Androgyno. These individuals, occasional targets for humor, play rather unimportant roles and are sometimes deleted from modern productions.

Ben Jonson was a talented playwright that had the historical misfortune to be a younger contemporary of Shakespeare. He is quite familiar to literary scholars and English literature majors, but for most of us he remains in the shadow of Shakespeare.

You can find several good editions of "Volpone", either alone or in collections. I recommend "Volpone or, The Fox", edited by David Cook, and published by Routledge in London. It was published in 1962, but has been reprinted many times. I benefited greatly from Cook's introduction and footnotes. This softcover book is printed on high quality paper.

Another widely available source is the inexpensive Oxford World's Classics, "The Alchemist and Other Plays" by Ben Jonson. The introduction and footnotes by Gordon Campbell are quite good.

I am a fan of Dover Thrift Editions, but I don't recommend the Dover "Volpone" 1994 edition for a first reading of Jonson as the footnotes are sparse.

I came upon this play and Ben Jonson by the back door. I was watching a movie titled "The Honey Pot" with Rex Harrison. His character Cecil Fox after observing this play used the outline for his own purposes. So naturally I have to read the play to see what the movie is mimicking.

I have several copies of "Valpone" (the fox) to compare information on Ben. This is a review of the "New Mermaids Series" I have several of their series. They give you all the background information and any annotation needed. They make the information interesting enough that you feel that Ben Jonson is in the room with you. I am sure some people would not want to be in the same room. I was surprised to find that William Shakespeare acted in some of Ben's plays.

The play is well written and has many levels to it. If it did not have so many footnotes I would be in trouble. It reads like an English play yet has parts that would make Stephen King blush.

Readers should note that this site does not distinguish between the various editions of Shakespeare, so the reviews you read may be for audiotapes, modern translations, etc. I am reviewing the Kenneth Branaugh BBC Radio recording of Hamlet. It is adequate, which I consider high praise for this challenging play. Like Branaugh's movie a few years later, it includes the entire text of the play, which is a nice way to remind yourself of some issues you may have forgotten.

The performances are pretty good, and include Branaugh (of course) as Hamlet and Derek Jacobi as Claudius, giving us a hint of the performances they would later give in the movie. No one's performance really blew me away, although Jacobi was excellent.

Ultimately, the play loses quite a bit when transferred to audio only. There's a lot to be conveyed with stage placement, physican action, expression, etc. Somehow, listening to the play limited my imagination on those issues, preventing my from using my "mind's eye" to the fullest.

Hamlet is considered, by many scholars, the pinnacle of Shakespeare's dramas. If you haven't read it yet this this Case Studies in Contemporary Criticism edition would be a great place to begin.

The text notes that are included with the play are very helpful to understand some of the more difficult language nuances that are inevitable with any Shakespeare. The structure is well laid out and conclusive. It complements the complexity of Hamlet very well.

Of course Hamlet is one of the great paradoxes and mysteries every written. The search of finding yourself and what it is that fuels the human spirit. Hamlet can be a very confusing play because of the depth of substance. However, the critical essays that suppliment the reading make it very accessable.

Each of the critical essays are of different schools of literary criticism: Feminist Criticism, psychoanalytic criticism, post-structuralist (deconstuctionist) criticism, Marxist critism, and finally a New Historicist criticism. Before each critism there is clearly written introduction to explain the motives and histories of that type of criticism.

This edition of Hamlet will not only introduce the reader to more Shakespeare, but also explain the play and help to familiarize the reader with literary criticism too. It is a beautiful volume that cannot be more recommended if you are wanting to buy a copy Hamlet.

Hamlet has always been thought of as one of the classics of literature. I could not think of another book which deserves this title more. The story of a Danish pricne who learns from his fathers ghost that his father, the king, was murdered by his brother, Hamlet's uncle, who then went on to marry Hamlet's mother. Hamlet is overcome by a longing for revenge, but also indecisive. Shakespeare creates a great amount of tension between the chatacters with powerful confrontatoins and biting language. It is a suspenseful tragedy, filled with anguish.

William Shakespeare was a genious when it came to breaking down the human psyche, and Hamlet is perhaps one of the most complex plays when it comes to human emotions. It is undoubtably one of his finest works, full of very complex, interesting characters, and a wonderfully chaotic plot. There are innumerable theories on Hamlet, why he is so indecisive, and if it all comes down to an oedipus complex. whatever way you interpret it, everyone can get something out of it. I feel like I am priveleged to have read such a wonderful play.

Hamlet is a character that I can relate to in some ways, being a very indecisive person myself. I felt I could connect with him better than many Shakespeare characters, MacBeth, Ceasar, Juliet, Helena or Hermia. That is one of the reasons that I enjoyed Hamlet so very much. I wish that everyone could love Hamlet as much as I did, but I know, especially being a high-school student, that it is a little much for general reading. For high school students, like me, I very strongly recommend this book, if you really like Shakespeare, and aren't looking for a quick read. Otherwise, it might be a little to much to tackle, if you don't really enjoy Shakespearian tragedies. For anyone who has time required to comprehend such a complex work, and is looking for a masterpiece of literature that will keep them thinking, Hamlet is the book for you.

I have recently read "The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet" in school. I enjoyed reading this play as I felt it provided me with a different outlook because of its vocabulary. The plot of the story was very romantic, but in the end the play became dramatic. It tells a story of true love between two resented families, Montague and Capulet.
Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet risk their lives to be together and nothing could get in the way of their feelings of true love. Even though their families hated each other, they still found a way be married, although it was not easy because of all the tragedies throughout the play. Romeo's best friend, Mercutio and Juliet's cousin, Tybalt both died. Also, Juliet's father was forcing her to marry Paris, another man. There were many more tragedies, which kept the two lovers away from each other. The name of both houses was the main reason why Romeo and Juliet could not be together. As Juliet said, "What's in a name?" If it were not for the significance of the names there would be no tragedy.
Without William Shakespeare's acts of irony, love, hate tragedy and pride the story would not have been worth reading. The way he twisted the story when they got married was unusual too, as getting married can make life different in a good way, but in this story, not.

This book is a story tells a story about true love. The characters Romeo and juliet has been a role model for many people in their love life.This story includes all the elements to prove that love that Romeo and Juliet had was true love. William Shakespeare uses tragedy,love, hate, pride, and irony.

Romeo, from house the house of Montagues,is best described as a love. He does things for Juliet even though it risks his life. But no matter the consequences, he went with hs feelings. Juliet, from house of Capulets, is a lover at will. She had never loved a man as much a Romeo. But though they were from opposing families, she finds a way to marry him.

There were many tragedies. Two being Mercutio and Tybalts death. There were many more tragedies that happened and one main reason why they happened which was the fact that the two house were against each other. This caused all the tragedies because if they were not, both lovers would live happily. One thing that kept the family against each other was the pride in their name. If it were not for the name then all would not end in tragedy.

One ironic part in this story was when the two lovers got married. Getting married usually makes life better but in this marraige, it made thing worse and turned the story into a different direction.

This story must have been the best story i have ever read. It is love story that makes me think of how far i would go for a girl. Though it is hard to read, I enjoyed it very much and i suggest the book to all the lovers out there but could be enjoyed by all.

Romeo and Juliet are the two most known lovers created by William Shakespeare. Their love story is one to be cried for, and it really shows the true meaning of what love is. Many people have claimed and agreed it is the most sad but romantic play ever written, and it really is.
They're a pair of star crossed lovers, who fall in love at first site. Their hopless love is denied from the very beginning: their families have an awful hatred towards each other which has been everlasting. They go through many tests for them to prove they really love each other: Romeo's best friend dying; Romeo's exile after murdering Mercutio, Juliet's cousin; and finally Romeo learning his dear lover's "death".
Although it has a tragic ending, many people say this story is actually happy, for they both die at the same time, and their love is kept together, for eternity.

Shakespeare portrays King Richard III as a hunchbacked thoroughly evil man. While based upon the historical Richard III, the play is a dramatization. Although classed as a history, remember that Shakespeare's histories aren't historically accurate biographies. Richard is a power-hungry brother of a king who murders, schemes, marries, and plots to usurp the throne from rightful heirs. Richard gets his due when he meets Henry Tudor on the field of battle and the reign of the Yorkist kings comes to an end. Written under the rule of a Tudor monarch (Elizabeth I), the play paints the brutal Richard in an especially unfavorable light. After all, the rise of the Tudors depended upon the death of Richard III. The treatment of women in the play has been criticized, especially the speed under which Anne accepts Richard III -- with her dead father in law in the scene, no less. The play compresses 14 years or so of real history into 5 acts. It is hard to go wrong with Shakespeare. A good but dark read.

Let's get one thing clear from the start: when I rate Shakespeare, I rate it against other Shakespeare; otherwise, the consistently high ratings would not be very informative. If I was rating this against the general run of literature available, it would unquestionably rate 5 stars.

So what brings it down to 4, as compared to other Shakespeare? Primarily a few places where it demands a bit too much suspension of disbelief; the language is some of Shakespeare's best, and is comparatively easy for a modern reader (I found most of the footnotes to be sufficiently unnecessary to be actually more distraction than help). But for one thing, if Richard is withered, hunchbacked, and deformed, how is it that he has been able to kill so many of his victims in battle? For another thing, is it REALLY plausible that Princess Anne would be persuaded as she was by someone with nothing more going for him than Richard? To paraphrase the scene,

Anne: You killed my husband and his father! I hate you I hate you I hate you!

Richard: But I only did it 'cause I'm hot for you, babe! Wanna marry me?

Anne: Welll...maybe. Let me think about it.

(And, in fact, she marries him. Just like that.)

Also, there are virtually NO characters in this play that are sympathetic, save perhaps for the two murdered children and Richmond, and we really don't see enough of them to feel much connection; it dilutes the effectiveness of the portrayal of Richard's evil when almost all of the other characters are, if not just as bad, certainly bad enough.

Richard III is the most well crafted satanic character in all of Shakespeare's writing. What can get frightening is that you see his evil, and yet you like him. The play is dramatically frightening from one scene to the next. To this day, I never could forget the scene where Hastings is sentenced to death or when Richard is haunted by the 11 ghosts. But the virtuous Henry VII also offers captivating passages (especially his passage that announces the end of the War of the Roses.) It is also interesting to see how carefully Shakespeare had to handle Henry VII, seing his granddaughter Elizabeth was in the audience. To be sure, Richard III is blamed for several things he did not do. The dramatic irony is that whatever he was innocent of, all the circumstancial evidence says he murdered his nephews.(Rumors that he killed them continued to spread like fire. Not only did he start losing England's loyalty, but many of his own followers in a rage abandoned him and joined Henry VII. France began to humiliate Richard by broadcasting official accusations and Richard never so much as denied having done it. If he could have produced the princes, his troubles would have been over.)This one vile deed made it possible for Shakespeare to make Richard this monster from hell and convincingly pile a slew of vile deeds upon him of which he was innocent. But all that aside, women such as Richard's furious mother and the raging former Queen Margaret add to the drama and chills. The gradual unfolding of Margaret's curses adds a charming orginizational bonus to this masterpiece. If you want to enjoy this play all the more, make sure you read "3 Henry VI" first. Richard's demonic nature is heavily prepared in this preceeding play.

When drama goes hand in hand with comedy, a fantastic and peculiar pair enters the stage. It is quite difficult to achieve that strange feeling in which the reader is able to find pity in joy, as Shakespeare was able to do when writing his comedy The Taming of the Shrew.
Baptista is stubborn to let his favourite and younger daughter Bianca get married after finding a suitor for the shrewish Katherina, his oldest daughter. As a consequence, a complicated mockery is carried out and anyone displays a true identity both literally and metaphorically. Besides the humorous joke and its funny characters, compassion is clearly shown.
A classic that a reader will never forget. Furthermore than a simple play, Shakespeare also criticized the submissive role of women as well as the poor treatment of servants, always from a comic view, which is a useful way to understand the Elizabethan period, with its habits and customs. Although it may not be too realistic and the actions are sometimes extravagant to happen in true life, it does not let the reader get bored and he/ she will find that the book is easily and quickly read.
Once again, a classic that everybody should read in order to start changing those problems that have persisted for ages: women's role in society and everyone's right to have a satisfactory treatment through injustice.

Of all of Shakespeare's plays that I have read, this is the most enjoyable. The characters are real and engaging - the sweetly stupid Bianca and her hoard of suitors, Baptista, who is more interested in selling his daughters to rich husbands than making them happy, the sly and masterful Petruchio, and most of all, Katherine, the Shrew. The play is full of action, comedy, and enough mistaken and hidden identities to keep the reader happily confused.

Katherine, who appears to be "tamed" by Petruchio's cruelties, learns the art of subtlety and diplomacy that will enable her to survive in a society ruled by men. Her speech in the last scene is not a humbling affirmation of the superiority of men, but a tounge-in-cheek ridicule of Petruchio, Lucentio, and Hortensio, who think that a woman can be tamed like a wild animal by a few days of bumbling controll.

The Folger Library of Shakespeare's plays are the most readable editions that I have seen. There are detailed side notes and definitions of unfamiliar words, which are perfect for the reader who is not familiar with Shakespearean English.

The Taming of the Shrew is a play within a play. It starts out with a drunkard, Sly, and a lord. The lord bets that he can trick Sly into thinking he is a lord. When Sly wakes up he doesn't understand, but eventually accepts who they say he is. After a few minutes he becomes bored and the play, "Taming of the Shrew" comes on. It is a play that has men dressing as women, other men, and women dressing as men. I would recommend it to someone who is looking for a book that will have a geat beginning, middle, end, and will keep you wanting to read the next page.

This is Shakespeare's 2nd last play. Yet, nothing indicates that he was running out of steam. The images are beautiful. Stephano, Caliban, and Trinculo are memorable as the bumbling conspirators. Miranda and Ferdinand are fine as the two young lovers. Ariel is striking as Prospero's loyal servant. Prospero is a magnificent creation. Not only does he offer several beautiful and memorable passages, but he is well drawn as a character who was unfairly forced into exile. He also makes his prison his paradise. In addition, he is a fine representation of Shakespeare himself: "Knowing I loved my books, he furnished me / From mine own library with volumes that / I prize above my dukedom" (1.2.166-168). His speeches in 4.1 and 5.1 also reflect how Shakespeare himself was contemplating the end of his career. The story itself is very well drawn. Shakespeare grabs our attention with a storm at sea. He offers us a reflection of himself, comical touches, beautiful images, profound passages, beautiful language, young lovers, comical villains, and deep messages. If you like this, be sure to read his final play "Henry VIII."

I took this play with me out on my morning walks this week, and I feel that at the same time I was excercising my body I was also giving my mind and my imagination a pretty good workout.

Like any form of excercise, reading Shakespeare isn't always easy, especially when you're just getting started. But if you stick with it, you're apt to find that it gets easier and the benefits become more apparent. Shakespeare's metaphorical language forces your mind to stay nimble and alert and his rich imagery gives you no other choice than to reconnect your soul to the world around you.

"The Tempest" is a lot of fun to read and it's not as weighty or ponderous as some of Shakespeare's dramas. It's a good choice to start with if you haven't read Shaksepeare before, or if you haven't read him since high school. The story involves Prospero, a duke who has been banished to a deserted island, along with his young daughter, Miranda. Propsero uses his magic to shipwreck a party of ex-compatriates who were originally responsible for his ousting. The ensuing drama deals with issues of loyalty, treachery, forgiveness, freedom, and the mind and body dichotomy. But the best part of it all is the vivid imagery. In the play's best moments, the words glow on the page.

Compared to some other works of William Shakespeare, "The Tempest" may be the deepest in meaning. To Shakespeare's credit, this play is also, unlike many of his others, largely original and of his creation. The characters are bloody well developed and the interloping themes bring you into the play. It is also amazing to follow the metaphorical parallelisms in the character of Prospero that reflect on Shakespeare himself. Essentially, Shakespeare announces the end to his writing days in this play. Read how Shakespeare went out like a champ! "The Tempest" is a universal story and its ideals can be placed in our contemporary society and culture.

These three plays include Measure for Measure which is about a man namedClaudio who is sentenced to die for having sexual relations before Church approval. Isabella, his sister, is pressured to have sex with Angelo, the Duke's Deputy in order to release Claudio. Will it work? Read or see the play in NY.

All's Well is about a girl, Helena, who chases a cad named Bertram. Why do Shakespeare's women seek men beneath them?

Troilus and Cressida are lovers when Troy and Greece are fighting over Helen. Cressida is ransomed over to the Greeks for a general. Will she remain faithful? Will Troilus get her back? Read this book.

These plays introduce ring swapping and the infamous bedroom switcheroo--Who's really having sex with whom?

For TROILUS knowledge of Homer's ILLIAD is helpful.

This play can be read as anti-semitic. In fact, it's pretty hard to defend it from such charges. Shylock is a pretty rotten character and the fact that he is jewish is difficult to overlook (particularly since the other characters mention it on pretty much EVERY page). However, I think it is important to mention that the "heroes" of this play do not necessarily have to be interpreted as heroes. They are by no means perfect and there are many subtle (and some not-so-subtle) instances within the text in which their biases against ANYONE unlike them is illustrated. If one reads the play this way, then Shylock becomes more of a tragic figure rather than an absolutely heartless villain. I don't know. My feelings about this are mixed. There are a few funny parts of this play and the language is, as always, beautiful. The theme of putting a price on human beings is one which has been explored numerous times since. Overall, it is enjoyable, but perhaps not so much so as some of the other comedies. Do not read this play without having read a few others by Shakespeare first. It is an excellent play, but not his best and not his most enjoyable either.

After reading most of the other reviews here, I am fully aware that most of the reviewers didn't read carefully enough (or watch carefully enough if they saw the play.) Now, I'm not saying its not open for different interpretations, but there is one thing I would really like to get straight.

I read MoV for a Bar Mitzvah project on Anti-Semitism. Naturally, my sympathies went to Shylock. However, even if i were Christian, i still would've favored Shylock. What many people believe is that Shylock is a cold hearted ruthless person and only wanted to get back at Antonio because Antonio was a Christian.

Not true. Shylock specifically says something along the lines off, "Why should I lend money to you? You spit on me, and call me a Jewish dog!" I'm not saying that Shylock was a good guy, but I am saying that he is not the villain.

In fact, the "Merchant of Venice," in this story is actually Shylock, not Antonio, contrary to popular belief. My thoughts on the story was that Shylock requested a pound of Antonio's flesh because he did not trust Antonio. Who would trust someone that spat on him? The fact is, Antonio doesn't pay him back in the end.

Now, there's always something else we have to put into consideration. Would the judge had given the "spill one ounce of Christian blood" verdict at the end if Shylock were not a Jew?

This is the mark of a great play. A play that really gets you thinking. But I encourage you, I beg of you, that when you read it or see it, please do not hold Shylock up to being a cold hearted villain. Hold Antonio up to that image. (joking, of course, Antonio's not a bad guy, he's just not a good guy.)

This is a wonderful play - and unless you have seen it or read it you don't know it at all. That's because everything the popular culture tells us about this play is false (for example; how many of you think this play is about a merchant named Shylock? ;-)

The Merchant of Venice is a lively and happy morality tale. Good triumphs over bad - charity over greed - love over hate.
There is fine comedy. Portia is one of Shakespeare's greatest women (and he ennobled women more than any playwright in history). There are moments of empathy and pain with all the major characters. There is great humanity and earthiness in this play. These things are what elevate Shakespeare over any other playwright in English history.

Plays should be seen - not read. I recommend you see this play (if you can find a theater with the courage and skill to do it). But if it is not playing in your area this season - buy the book and read it.

'Antony and Cleopatra' is a great tragedy about two personalities who were larger than life, and therefore shared a love fitting to their stature. Anthony is torn between the high seriousness & order of the Roman Empire (embodied in Caesar) and the sensuality & licentiousness of Ancient Egypt (embodied in Cleopatra)- worlds which are perfectly evoked by Shakespeare as he chronicles the political wheeling & dealing of the time, which ultimately led to the suicides of the two lovers. I don't think Shakespeare favours one world view over the other, and to read the play moralistically and say Rome = virtue = good and Egypt = vices = bad is to to do it a disservice.

The language in this play is often romantic and lush, a grand language suited to rulers of the world. Cleopatra's "O, my oblivion is a very Anthony,/ And I am all forgotten" has to be some of the most erotic stuff that the Bard ever wrote.

Cleopatra is a very passionate woman and a great role-player, but she is always herself, never inauthentic. What she feels may change from moment to moment, but while she's feeling it, it's REAL. I find her to be the more mature one in her and Anthony's relationship. Notice how she never yells at him for marrying Octavia, which is certainly a terrible betrayal. She accepts that he did what he had to do and is only glad that Anthony is again united with her. Her love for him is beyond judgement.

The relationship between Anthony and Caesar is a very complicated one, and one that fascinated me almost as much as that of Cleopatra and Anthony. Caesar admires Anthony, but he betrays himself as having contempt for him in the way he expresses that admiration. Dodgy man, that little Caesar.

Anthony and Cleopatra is one of Shakespeare's difficult plays, and so I suspect the ratings on the play are low because it's a more mature play than Romeo and Juliet. Here we have two middle age lovers who part of the time are foolish with lust/love and the rest of the time are tough minded heads of state. The "tragedy" is that they can't be both and survive. This is not a play for the young folks, I'm afraid. But if you want some heavy drama where the characters are spared nothing and given no slack, read Anthony and Cleopatra (hint: Cleopatra's suicide is more political statement than a crazy wish to die with Antony). Better yet see it performed by some real actors some time.

Cleopatra may be a somewhat ambiguous female character, but I totally loved her, and Bill's portrayal of her. I don't know if he expected the reader to judge her, but I suspect not. The harshest criticism of her comes from Octavius Caesar, who himself doesn't do a single noble thing throughout the whole play. She is fully aware of the fact that she is a sensual, passionate woman- which has no negative effect on her ability to rule Egypt. Her biggest faults are her violent temper (which I suspect is just part of her passionate nature) and her tendency to lie when it suits her (either for sport or for serious politics). Antony (I feel) is actually kind of a loser compared to her. His insincerity runs deep- he marries Caesar's sister in a political move, although he had repeatedly pledged his undying love for Cleopatra. She forgives him, because she truly loves him, even though he doesn't do anything to deserve forgiveness. Antony never fully allows himself to love Cleopatra. He constantly is overreacting to the slightest indication that she might be betraying him or whatever. It is one of these overreactions (combined with an ill-timed lie on Cleo's part) that ends up destroying them both. Even in the end, Cleopatra's death is more dignified and better conceived than Antony's messy and fumbling suicide.