When rating Shakespeare, I am rating it against other Shakespeare; otherwise, the consistent 4-5 stars wouldn't tell you much. So if you want to know how this book rates against the general selection of books in the world, I suppose it might rate four stars; it certainly rates three. The language, as usual in Shakespeare, is beautiful. Still, it's far from Shakespeare's best.

For one thing, this is one of those cases, not uncommon in Shakespeare's comedies, in which the play has suffered a great deal by the changes in the language since Shakespeare's time; it loses a great deal of the humor inherent in a play when the reader needs to keep checking the footnotes to see what's happening, and this play, particularly the first half of it, virtually can't be read without constant reference to the notes; even with them, there's frequently a question as to what's being said. At least in the edition that I read (the Dover Thrift edition) the notes frequently admit that there's some question as to the meaning of the lines, and there is mention of different changes in them in different folios.

But beyond this, as an overweight, balding, middle-aged libertine, I object to the concept that Falstaff is ridiculous just because he is in fact unwilling to concede that it is impossible that a woman could want him. Granted, he's NOT particularly attractive, but that has more to do with his greed, his callousness, and his perfect willingness to use people for his own ends, to say nothing of his utter lack of subtlety.

Is it truly so funny that an older, overweight man might attempt to find a dalliance? So funny that the very fact that he does so leaves him open to being played for the fool? Remember, it isn't as though he refused to take "no" for an answer; he never GOT a "no". He was consistently led on, only to be tormented for his audacity. Nor is he making passes at a nubile young girl; the target of his amorous approaches is clearly herself middle-aged; after all, she is the MOTHER of a nubile young marriageable girl. And given the fact that she is married to an obnoxious, possessive, bullying and suspicious husband, it is not at all unreasonable for Falstaff to think that she might be unhappy enough in her marriage to accept a dalliance with someone else.

If laughing at fat old men who have the audacity not to spend the last twenty years of their lives with sufficient dignity to make it seem as if they were dead already is your idea of a good time, you should love this play. I'll pass.

i've just finished reading/watching all of shakespeare's comedies and mww is one of the funnier ones. it is a lighthearted look at marital jealousy and features one of shakespeare's great fools, falstaff (of henry iv fame). the out-and-out funniest shakepearean play is still "taming of the shrew", imho, but mwv runs well ahead of the laggards, and certainly well ahead of such better known plays as "twelfth night" and "as you like it".

Shakespeare, considering he wrote this little gem of a comedy in a mere 14 days for the Virgin Queen, pulls off a play that proves both witty and fun. Unequivocally, The Merry Wives of Windsor makes for a more enjoyable play if seen live. Nonetheless, reading it is the 2nd best thing.

Sir John Falstaff is once again such a fool - but a lovable and hilarious one at that. Having read Henry V - where Falstaff ostensibly had met his end - I was pleased to see him so alive(pardon the pun) in this short, albeit clever play. It is no surprise that The Merry Wives of Windsor enjoyed such a long and successful stage run during Shakespeare's day and continues to be one of his most popularly staged plays. Recommended as a fun break from the more serious and murderous Shakespearean tragedies.

"Why, then the world's mine oyster,
Which I with sword will open." - Pistol

This is an important volume, if for no other reason than that it will--for better or worse--undoubtedly become the standard history of early English drama. However, the volume's slavish devotion to postmodernist sensibilities underlie the majority of material and make for a few terribly skewed pieces. Did you know, for example, that early modern playwrights very seldom actually wrote their plays? This volume assures us that the plays instead usually emerged through the semi-mystical process of "collaboration" that has become a buzz-word for postmodernist critics. Most of those apparently thematically unified and rhetorically tight Renaissance plays were actually the result of various pens and voices chiming in with whatever they felt was appropriate. Terribly impressive.

If you are a student or devotee of early English drama, you need to have this book on your shelf if for no other reason than that you will be referred to its articles time and again in subsequent scholarship. You are almost obligated to read them. Fortunately, you are not obligated to be convinced by them.

This is the best companion to Renaissance Drama we have. It is nothing less than a revolutionary account of the conditions of writing, producing, and experiencing the plays of Shakespeare's age. The individual essays are clearly written, learned, often ground-breaking in their impact--but it is the totality of this book that is most impressive, allowing us to see the great achievement of the English Renaissance through the defining contexts of its production and performance. Wow!

Could be titled "Everything You Ever Wanted to Know." This is unquestionably the best book about Renaissance Drama ever put together: authoritative essays, brilliantly organized, in a book that changes the shape of the field--hopefully forever.

One often wonders, when one hears everyone and their brothers spouting superlatives about a poet from a historically repressive country, whether the superlatives are based on the poet's actual work, or whether they're in some way based on the poet's admirable-- but irrelevant-- ability to perform within a culture that is repressive to the poet's art. In some cases, the superlatives are justified, for example Vladimir Holan's stunning book-length poem _A Night with Hamlet_, written while Holan was officially a non-person in Hungary in the sixties.

Akhmatova has been called "the greatest Russian woman poet ever, and perhaps the greatest woman poet ever." I can't help but think those lauding on these kinds of laurels are looking more at her life than her work. There are certainly flashes of great brilliance here, but to put Akhmativa's work up against that of, say, Elizabeth Bishop, Deborah Allbery, or even the underrated Dorianne Laux would quickly reveal many of its flaws.

This is not to say that Akhmatova's poetry is completely without merit, and one must be forced to consider the viability of the work of any translator who would consider "He, was it, through the packed hall/Sent you (or was it a dream?)" to be the best way to translate anything, much less poetry. And thus, perhaps, the original is far more eloquent than what we receive here. That taken into account, there is still the problem to contend with that much of Akhmatova's work is, for obvious reasons, overtly political, and makes no attempt to convey its message artistically; worse yet, a good deal of that work is imagist, impressionist. The end result is something that's thick, sludgy, and impossible to read.

However, every once in a while a good line will shine through, and occasionally we find ourselves staring at a poem that seems to exist well outside the boundaries of this particular collection:

* * *

Voronezh

And the town is frozen solid, leaded with ice.

Trees, walls, snow, seem to be under glass. Cautiously I tread on crystals. The painted sleighs can't seem to get a grip. And over the statue of Peter-in-Voronezh Are crows, and poplars, and a pale-green dome Washed-out and muddy in the sun-motes. The mighty slopes of the field of Kulikovo Tremble still with the slaughter of barbarians. And all at once the poplars, like lifted chalices, Enmesh more boisterously overhead Like thousands of wedding-guests feasting And drinking toasts to our happiness. And in the room of the banished poet Fear and the Muse take turns at the watch, And the night comes When there will be no sunrise.

* * *

Unfortunately, there's too little of this and too much of the rest. Giving the benefit of the doubt where the translation is concerned, I can still only manage ** 1/2.

Anna Akhmatova was one of the century's greatest lyric poets. D. M. Thomas has selected a fine overview of her poetic accomplishment, and translated the poems stunningly: both lyric cadences and the quality of spoken speech come through in his refashioning of the poems into English. (The Hayward/Kunitz tranlations are also fine, but for a brief introduction this is a wonderful book.)

The volume contains her "Requieum," a ten pagel lyric sequence which is my choice for the greatest poem of the twentieth century, as it combines personal lyricism, social witness, historical density, a primal narrative moment -- in poems which are stunning, one after another.

Perhaps only Yeats has rivalled Akhmatova's exploration of love in modern times, and there are many moments when her symbolism, her brevity, her song-like qualities are reminiscent of the best of Yeats.

This is a wonderful book, a fine introduction to a great, powerful, haunting poet.

While eye-filling and fairly comprehensive, David Day's work is not a reliable guide to the intricately detailed world of J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth novels. Day is entirely subjective, interposing his own interpretations and additions onto Tolkien's text. Tolkien's fans, who tend to have their own strongly-held opinions about such things, will most likely be annoyed, offended, or outraged. Fan fiction has its place, but not when it is marketed as a faithful representation of the original.

With "The fellowship of the Ring" motion picture coming up, I became interested again in Tolkiens wholly self-invented mythology. Strolling through my local bookshop one day, my eye was caught by a beautiful painting of Smaug attacking Lake Town. This painting turned out to be the cover of a beautifully illustrated and quite complete encyclopedia of Tolkiens World.

For me, the buying of this book turned out to be the starting point of a massive inquiry in Tolkiens world which I have far from ended today. And even after all that supplementary reading The Illustrated Encyclopaedia remains today one of my favorite books.

However. Getting nowadays more at home in Tolkiens mythology I am beginning to see the wholes in the text. I'm not saying that the "Encyclopaedia" errs, but I do believe that if the author had taken his research even further it would have turned out to be an even better, if not brilliant book. I give two examples.

First, the books chapters are about history, geography, sociology, natural history and biografies. Why not add a chapter about important objects, discussing for example the Rings of Power and/or the various magical swords wielded by the great heroes of Middle Earth? Such a chapter, I am sure, would prove very interesting. But by letting this stuff out, people are left with an alltogether beautiful, but essentially incomplete encyclopaedia.

Second, when one takes into consideration the subjects that did make the book, it is all to obvious that some of the information that should have been there was simply left out. Considering the history of Arda, for example, I was astonished to find no reference at all regarding the Dagor Dagorath, the final battle of the Gods, when Morgoth the Dark Enemy returns and Arda will be laid to waste...

My final word on the subject : I love this book, but what if...

I felt this is a must have for any fan of the series of books that JRR Tolkien has wrote, its just purely amazing how much actual history is behind the series. I have owned the book for two months and still have not read all of it, the art is great to look at and yes it may seem off from what the characters look today but its still a feast for the eyes, if your a casual fan of the series this is not the book for you, you will get lost in all the history of the books. But if your a fan and wish to learn more about middle earth, this is a book for you as it will open your eyes to the first three ages of middle earth. Great to have and own.