King John (Folger Shakespeare Library)

I love that the commentary is directly opposite the script. No having to search in the back of the book. Nice large size, easy to hold and read,

Perfect characterizations make for an excellent experience of this early history. Don’t shy from it. I enjoyed it thoroughly and completely

King John is Shakespeare’s version of medieval realpolitik. Everyone, from king to queen to cardinal, is corrupt and interested more in power and conquest than in any more noble aim.It makes for entertaining reading if you are partial to this kind of narrative. Orwell, for example, thought he saw the predecessors of the twentieth century politicians he depicted in Animal Farm.Personally, I prefer Shakespeare’s works with more memorable wordplay and pathos. But King John should enjoy a renaissance in the wake of popular successes like Game of Thrones. Dragons aside, the imagined worlds of Martin and Shakespeare bear a close resemblance. Recommended to those who cannot get enough of Shakespeare’s histories.

The layout of the texts with notes on the facing page is brilliant! I have loved these since college - many years ago - and the newer versions are even better!

the Oxford Shakespeare has been touted as 'a new conception' of Shakespeare, but is in fact merely an update of the cumbersome old Arden editions. Like these, 'King John' begins with a 100-page introduction, divided into 'Dates and Sources' (full of what even the editor admits is 'tedious' nit-picking of documentary evidence); 'The Text' (the usual patronising conjecture about misprints in the Folio edition and illiterate copyists); 'A Critical Introduction', giving a conventional, but illuminating guide to the drama, its status as a political play dealing with the thorny problem of royal succession, the contemporary legal ambiguities surrounding inheritance, the patterning of characters, the use of language (by characters as political manoeuvring, by Shakespeare to subvert them); and an account of 'King John' 'In the Theatre', its former popularity in the 18th and 19th century as a spectacular pageant, the play distorted for patriotic purposes, and its subsequent decline, presumably for the same reasons. The text itself is full of stumbling, often unhelpful endnotes - what students surely want are explanations of difficult words and figures, not a history of scholarly pedantry. The edition concludes with textual appendices.The play itself, as with most of Shakespeare's histories, is verbose, static and often dull. Too many scenes feature characters standing in a rigid tableau debating, with infinite hair-cavilling, issues such as the legitimacy to rule, the conjunction between the monarch's person and the country he rules; the finer points of loyalty. Most of the action takes place off stage, and the two reasons we remember King John (Robin Hood and the Magna Carta) don't feature at all. This doesn't usually matter in Shakespeare, the movement and interest arising from the development of the figurative language; but too often in 'King John', this is more bound up with sterile ideas of politics and history, than actual human truths. Characterisation and motivation are minimal; the conflations of history results in a choppy narrative. There are some startling moments, such as the description of a potential blood wedding, or the account of England's populace 'strangely fantasied/Possessed with rumours, full of idle dreams/Not knowing what they fear, but full of fear'. The decline of the king himself, from self-confident warrior to hallucinating madman, anticipates 'King Lear', while the scene where John's henchman sets out to brand the eyes of the pubescent Pretender, is is full of awful tension.P.S. Maybe I'm missing something, but could someone tell me why this page on 'King John' has three reviews of 'Timon of Athens'? Is somebody having a laugh?

My twelve year old son has really enjoyed reading all of Shakespeare's plays... thank you.

love the language.

This review is for a different edition (New Penguin) so ignore the format notes.For one of the less-beloved histories, this was quite funny and entertaining. It was a lot less dull than Henry VI Part I and moved along briskly. The Bastard is a fantastic character and Hubert and John himself both interesting. The supporting characters, from Constance to Arthur to the Dauphin to to Salisbury to Pandulph, are consistently and distinctly characterized.One thing that I think people miss is that the first half of the play (everything up till John suborns Hubert to kill Arthur) is hilarious, and deliberately so. The whole business with Angiers and the papal legate should have the audience rolling on the floor, to say nothing of the Bastard's antics. The play takes its cue from him- capable of seriousness, but always with an edge of humor.Highlights include anything with the Bastard (who banters with Eleanor of Aquitaine in his first scene!), Hubert and John's interactions, anything where John is a blatant hypocrite, and Constance's "I am not mad. This hair I tear is mine" speech. And the bit where the Bastard stops the lords from murdering Hubert and then turns out to wrongly suspect Hubert himself.Not top-grade Shakespeare but not as bad as its reputation either, and not the worst of the histories.The New Penguin edition was annoying in that it had endnotes instead of footnotes, requiring constant flipping back and forth. It only cost a dollar secondhand, so I couldn't say no, but if you have a choice, go with Signet instead.

King John is now the first of the Shakespeare histories that I've read and it was a great way to start. On with Edward III

Excellent play. Very good accompanying information and notes.

Well produced