A Midsummer Night's Dream (Folger Shakespeare Library)

Quite funny, short and simple. Humour and a must read. The course of true love never did run smooth❤️. Loved it.

Let me make a few things clear. This (the PAPERBACK version) is a exact copy of Midsummer Night's Dream. No issues in the print or quality. If you are looking to read midsummer night's dream by yourself and not for your academic study, you can go ahead with the purchase with your eyes closed. But this is not the book I was looking for or envisioned when I ordered it. I need the book for my SYBA academic study and thus naturally require critical analysis of the text as well as writer's notes so that I can write better in exams. This book has NONE of it, despite many reviewers saying it does. So I fished around to see what the problem is and immediately realised what it was - the paperback version and the mass market paperback version are DIFFERENT books. I'm not talking about different books by the same author and publishing house, I'm talking about two books that are published by two different publishing houses and have different contents and translations. THAT book has the notes and analyses reviewers are talking about, not this one. So if you are looking to buy the book for your study, make sure that you get the mass market paperback or search for a different source altogether. I'm regretting buying this a lot and I can't even return it because of stupid Amazon policies.

Was not expecting side by side explanation of the acts and scenes. That was very thorough. Reminded me of the school days :-)

The play has a way of telling how love is controlled by desires which can be easily manipulated by some interested person. It is a good read and I would recommend it to be read.

There are so many things going on in this book, all at the same time as if the language is not enough to confuse you. It has a great plot no doubt but it's not easy to get there once you get everything mixed up in your head and lose your will to read anymore.

Really really best quality don't miss it

The book is interesting from the beginning itself. I enjoyed it even more because I did not find it as difficult as I was expecting it to be. The readers are in for a treat of good plot, magic, romance and most importantly some humour. Every dialogue brought a smile on my face. I could surely understand why Shakespeare is considered a master of literature. I really enjoyed the innocence of Puck- naughty yet obedient. The beautiful and vivacious setup created by the author makes the story more real. This edition of the play has a gorgeous cover, brightening up your mood even before you start reading. The initial few pages require concentration to get hold of the characters but the rest just flows very smoothly. This short play is a one-sitting read.

I bought it for academic references and its great. The book is in perfect condition. The packaging was fine and arrived just on time. Thank you ❤

Most editors are well disposed towards the plays they are asked to edit and Peter Holland is no exception - he tells us that there was no other title he'd have chosen in preference. Not everyone would agree with him about the play's merits, however. His undergraduate friend considered it 'a pappy play', and there have been plenty of other disparaging comments across the centuries. (Famously, Pepys described Dream as 'the most insipid ridiculous play', while for Malone it was unbelievably thin and trite.) After reading this exemplary edition, which reveals much of its full complexity, Dream should not be mistaken for such simple and unsubstantial fare again. Holland begins with a succinct account of modern dream theories, before tackling Classical, medieval and Renaissance views. Particularly interesting is his discussion of treatments of dream in the literature of Shakespeare's contemporaries, where Robert Greene's dismissive stance approximates to that of the rational (but limited) Theseus, while Thomas Lodge's more credulous acceptance of dreams and their mystery aligns him more closely with Hippolyta. The Introduction is astute as well as comprehensive. It observes that doubling the roles of Theseus/Oberon and Hippolyta/Titania has become routine since the 60s, but is critical of those who see this revival of doubling primarily as a solution to financial or pragmatic problems, insisting that it originally had an 'interpretative' function. Holland sees the Elizabethan practice of doubling as a structural device, where 'the audience's recognition of an actor was used to underline the interconnectedness of a series of roles he performed in a play.' Although I'm no historian of critical thought, it seems to me at least that Holland anticipates some of the more influential work of recent scholars. Louis Montrose's study of the Elizabethan theatre's subversion of patriarchal values is hinted at in this edition's Commentary. (See the note on Bottom's apparently innocent use/misuse of the word 'deflowered', p247n, for example.) Equally praiseworthy are the references made to those filmed versions of Dream, like Reinhardt's (1935), that might be considered too dated for extensive, post-Peter Brook discussion. Arden's forthcoming Dream will have a difficult job surpassing its Oxford competitor, first published in 1994. It's just a shame that in the intervening 17 years OUP haven't managed to reference page numbers mentioned in at least three sections of the book: Introduction, Editorial Procedures and Commentary. 'See p000' might suffice at proof stage, but it really isn't good enough so many years on. Peter Holland's informed and constantly illuminating edition deserves better.

The book was very funny. It was a bit hard to understand at first but it’s worth the effort. Also, on each page there’s a side dedicated to a few words/expressions explanations.

👍

It's a nice small book, looks high quality

good