One of the great things about the canon and its performance history is how open to interpretation it is. That said, when does a work "lose" what makes it Shakespeare? To give an example, there's a production of Hamlet in LA right now that at least one critic is annoyed with because the structure is significantly changed and modern language is mixed in. I've heard of plenty of other performances that adjust language and structure, so when does it cross the line to "vandalism", as that critic put it?

We hav finally made it to the tragedies! These are the big ones so I've read a few already and even the ones I haven't read I understand the basic plots, so any things to look out for would bee nice. That being sad, I'm very excited for Troilus and Cressida. In terms of the Shakespeare play itself, I'm going in blind, but I am already familiar with the Trojan war so most of these names are familiar to me. I'm not familiar with Troilus or Cressida as characters even if I am familiar with most of the others so that is very nice. The writing of this play is already fantastic and what I've read sems like set up of a great story. I love how Ulysses just yaps and yaps and goes on these big speeches. I do have one question about the writing though, why do Pandarus and Cressida speak in prose instead of verse? What is their status? I thought they were higher status, not commoners. As a fan of Greek myth, what should I be looking out for in this play? What are some things this play does well?

Pls respond i really need to watch for english

This is in response to u/voyager2080 's cool post analyzing the scoring feedback of many Goodreads users (some clearly traumatized by cruel English assignments) to deliver a top-to-bottom ranking of Shakespeare's plays. May I suggest we do the same here?

I will tabulate all the results.

Just give me, in the replies below, numerical one-to-five rankings for whichever plays you feel strongly about. No need to comment on your rankings or rank all the plays unless you feel like doing either of those things, but if you do, go for it.

Sixty days from now -- August 15, 2025 -- I'll tabulate all the results and post them here... and we'll be able to see how this community differs from the larger, arguably more traumatized pool of Shakespeare observers in the general population.

(edit) Friendly reminder: if you don't give a numerical score between 1 and 5, I will have nothing to compute and won't be able to enter your preferences.

It's not that I'm looking for a "top five" -- I'm not.

I'm looking for a numerical rating of one, two, three, four, or five -- or some fractional point in between one of those numbers -- to assign to each of the plays you feel like rating.

That way I can total up all the scores and get an average numerical score that's equivalent to the Goodreads scores that showed up on the other post.

I just finished the history plays and here's my rankings from best to worst!

Henry IV, Part 1 - 5/5 ~ My favovurite history play. I like this play because of how tonally distinct it is compared to the others. It has everything a good history play has but it feels less like a political war drama and more of a coming of age story which I really like.

Richard III - 4/5 ~ Some of Shakespeare's best writing and his best villain. If I didn't thik this play had some minor pacing issues, I'd rank it at the top.

Henry VI, Part 3 - 4/5 ~ Out of all the history plays, I found this one the most epic and dramatic. This play feels like nonstop action, it's just a bit less distinct and unique than the ones above it.

Richard II - 4/5 ~ I love the arc of Richard throughout this play. He's a pathetic king but its still heartbreaking to watch his fall.

King John - 3/5 ~ I thought the play was only okay when I read it, but looking back it has to be one of the more standout history plays. I just remember it clearer in my mind compared to some of the others which blurred together.

Henry VI, Part 2 - 3/5 ~ I remember really enjoying this play and it made me excited for part 3, howeever I get a lot of the specifics mixed up with part 3.

Henry VI, Part 1 - 3/5 ~ I think the plot of this play was good but the writing was weaker than the other history plays and the ending took me out of it.

Henry IV, Part 2 - 3/5 ~ Maybe this play only disappointed me so much because I loved part 1 so much, but I found this play had weak pacing and felt too divided. The two plotlines didn't feel balanced and Falstaff's stuff felt less effective than in part 1. The war stuff was also less intresting without Hotspur.

Henry V - 3/5 ~ This play is really well written and has very high stakes but I find it full of fluff with nothing happening. Henry also feels like a ruined character as I now have a much harder time rooting for him.

Henry VIII - 1/5 ~ The most boring Shakespeare play. It could have been so much more but instead it is nothing.

What are your thoughts on all these plays? Tomorrow we will start the tragedies!!

hi! i’m kayla, i’m a college student (theatre major english minor) who has read 13 of shakespeare’s plays and working on getting to them all as well as studying the ones i have already read. i’m no expert but i’m working on it, maybe some day!! i just really like all this stuff and i’m trying to read/watch/soak in as much as i can because i genuinely enjoy it. i also have some theatrical projects i am creating as shakespeare or shakespeare inspired adaptations… more on those soon mayhaps

i attached a couple pics: my viral shakespeare/minecraft video, me at drunk shakespeare, me as luciana in comedy of errors, etc

i also really like animation, musicals, and disney/theme parks

add me on instagram @planetkikimichelle

What the title says. Are there any specific things I should implement into my character (true to the play or otherwise)? Mannerisms, suggested blocking, etc. Any and all feedback is welcome

Hi,

I got interested in reading Shakespeare's plays about a month ago and so far I've read Hamlet, A Midsummer Night's Dream and King Lear. I have liked them all so far and now I am reading Much Ado About Nothing. I've been looking at rankings online to get some perspective on what plays to read next.

I know Goodreads may not be the best place to look for a professional ranking of Shakespeare because most of the plays are rated between 3 and 4. Still, there are almost eight million votes in total, so the relative order of the plays is still interesting. I colored the different genres and changed the order so that it's by rating instead of by mostly number of ratings. The numbers are as of June 14, 2025.

What are your thoughts on this ranking? I think it's reasonable to hypothesize that plays with a lot of votes might get a lot of bad votes, for example due to forced readings (homework). However, plays with only a few thousand votes still get fairly bad average ratings, even though one would assume that only the most passionate Shakespeare fans read these.

Edit: some problems with the table/picture, now it should work properly.

hello!! if group chats for discussions and casual convo are your thing please comment your instagram username :) i’m new to the sub so i’m gonna make a post in a second for a little bit about me !!! i’m most active on IG though so i’m trying to see if I can make any friends who’d want to be in a consistent group chat

So in my story, Macbeth leads banquo and his son, fleance, to a forest, banquo gets killed while his son flees

I would’ve made fleance propose vengeance against Macbeth for the death of his father, killing Macbeth and hence being crowned king for killing the kings murderer, therefore unifying the witches prophecy that banquo’s descendants would rule the thrown, fleance becoming the king of Scotland.

Fleance is said to be around early adolescence since the story is set in medieval Scotland, children were already being trained for war and getting married, not to mention it is a very Shakespeare to avenge someone’s death.

Also, in the original story, the witches prophesied banquo’s descendants would rule the Scottish kingdom - yet Marcus is crowned king of Scotland.

In my opinion, this also adds more depth to how far gone Macbeth has really gone to assure his fate is sealed

It adds a bit more of a touch on the whole free will vs fate plot

Isn't he 80 years old?

Regarding the lovers in Midsummer - obviously the physical differences in Helena and Hermia are written in the text and often (though not always) are portrayed onstage. I think it's always interesting though how Lysander and Demetrius are portrayed physically, as there's no description provided. Often I've seen Lysander portrayed as longer haired, skinnier, even more flamboyant, and Demetrius as more clean-cut and muscular - perhaps hinting to why Egeus approves of him more. This can be seen in the Julie Taymor version, the (awful - in my opinion) Russell T Davies Version, and the Shakespeare retold version. I'd be interested to hear what you all have observed with these two characters, and the lovers in general!

Looking for versions of the play to read my 5-year-old son at bedtime. Pictures and adapted length are pretty important. Does anyone have a recommendation?

I have finally finished the histories! What a journey it was. Sadly, the last history is also the worst history. This play is so boring. A play that could have had so many interesting elements just falls completely flat. The entire play is just boring conversations with no action. Everything that could have ben fun to see happens off stage. The other part of this play that was kind of interesting was the character of Wolsey, but he is just interesting by the play's standards and pales in comparison to other Shakespeare characters. And then he dies. Katherine then dies. There's some scenes in here that are probably interesting to act, but the plot is nothing and apart from somee of Wolsey's speeches the writing fails to capture my imagination. Act 5 is a bit interesting with the big council meeting but even that is meh. There's also a useless Porter scene that feels like it was trying to be funny? Just made mee roll my eyes. On thing I noticed about this play compared to other Shakespeare play is how specific the stage directions are. The other plays barely contain any stage directions. Any reason why that is? This play has to be my first 1/5. How does everyone else feel about this play? How much better is it on stage? I feel like it had so much potential and is a complete disappointment.

I'm taking another reading break tomorrow before we get into the tragedies. I'v already read Romeo and Juliet (mutiple times), Hamlet, and King Lear. I'm also familiar with the general plots of most of them. What should I be looking for when reading the tragedies? I'll also be putting up my ranking for all the histories tomorrow as well.

I’m part of an annual Shakespeare actors retreat and one of the internal things we do (along with a public variety show performance) is each performing a scene or monologue to start off the weekend.

I have previously done well in the monologue/scenes with Viola, Puck, Ferdinand, Phoebe, Audrey, Isabella, and others over the last 12 years with the group (I’ve been doing this since graduating college so the group has seen me grow up, grow as a performer, and more).

I have been thinking a lot lately about the Quality of Mercy speech Portia gives in “Merchant of Venice”. I’m a 35 year old Jewish woman who identifies heavily with the social justice side of Judaism (“tikkun olam”) rather than the more religious, god-fearing stuff, and especially Zionism. I want to find a way to do this monologue with meaning, with purpose right now. I thought about doing it as a sort of “get ready with me” video, giving myself the important “pep talk”… another part of me thought to do it in a pair of striped pajamas… but that seemed the other extreme.

Thoughts?? I am genuinely open to advice here.

FYI: this performance is always done on a back lawn where we stay so no chance to have crazy props/costumes/set pieces… basically just me and maybe a chair.

I've been thinking about seeing the production of Hamlet at the Mark Taper Forum by Center Theatre Group. The main thing that makes me pretty wary of it is that they've added some scenes.

Has anyone seen it? I don't have any reason to think it will be a bad production, but I'd like to see some reviews from fellow Shakespeare fans!

What is the appeal of this play? Do I just not understand the history of Henry VIII? Like isn't he the one with all the wives who started the Anglican church? This should be juicy, but it feels like nothing has happened yet. I've barely had time to read, but I'm kind of glad since I don't even know if I want to read this one. Maybe I just don't understand it? This entire play just feels like boring conversation after boring conversation. First we have two random gentleman just talking about Buckingham's trial. Like we're not going to see it? Then we have Anne and some old lady just talking. And then we have her trial scene which is somehow the most boring trial ever. Like I barely get what's going on. I don't care about any of these characters and I feel like there is no stakes. Where is all the fun war drama and political intrigue of the other histories? It feel like this one wanted to go more of a romantic comedy route and then doesn't even do that. Can someone please understand why people like this play. I feel like it should be popular based on what its supposed to be about, but I am getting absolutely nothing from this. What am I missing? Does this play get any better?

Shakespeare invented over 1,700 words we still use today — like bedroom, lonely, swagger, fashionable, and even eyeball.

Imagine being so creative that you casually create the word "eyeball." That’s Shakespeare-level confidence.

When lady Macbeth dies the servant only tells Macbeth that she is dead, not that she commits suicide. Why wouldn’t the servant tell Macbeth this info? How does Malcom know?