Shakespeare as Literary Dramatist

by Lukas Erne

Lukas Erne argues in this study that Shakespeare, apart from being a playwright who wrote theatrical texts for the stage, was also a literary dramatist who produced reading texts for publication. Contrary to a long-standing consensus, Shakespeare does not seem to have been opposed, or indifferent, to the publication of his plays, and he pursued a policy of trying to get them published. Accordingly, Shakespeare's long play texts survive in a literary format that would have required shortening before they reached the stage.

Genres: Shakespeare, Nonfiction, Literary Criticism, History

300 pages, Hardcover

First published March 13, 2003

Reviews

[Eugenia · Rating 4 out of 5]

My students have been a little skeptical, and we're looking forward to the second edition that reportedly takes account of the early critiques (namely that Erne claims to be establishing a model for how to read early printed Shax but doesn't really do it, except for a few limited examples in the final chapters). We found it very productive to speculate what, exactly, is going on in a reader's imagination when one reads the Folio -- and to think of the Folio as a reader's text -- but also hampered by the dearth of "case-studies" that one could use to find examples of readerly signs. I am also not sure that I'm convinced by the readerly signs, always, although I *am* convinced now that the folio texts are neither "performance" texts nor foul papers but texts composed "to the great varietie of readers."

[Michael P. · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is one of those cases in which I wish I could give two and a half stars, because I find too much unconvincing to give it three, but it would be churlish to award only two, for the good parts are worth knowing. This second edition has a new introduction in which Erne answers the many critics of his first edition, so this is the one to get. I am writing about this book for a Shakespeare journal, so I do not feel that I should give away too much here. Casual readers may ignore, but we who work in the field need to read this, know its arguments and the reasons for them.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really good for folks who want to study (or teach) lots of Shakespeare. Erne demonstrates that many of Shakespeare's plays, particularly from the late 1590s on, were written for readers rather than for the stage, and in many cases these readerly forms are the only ones we have. This goes against most Shakespeare scholarship for the past few decades, which presented Shakespeare as a writer for the stage rather than the page.

[Michael P. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Erne troubles our conventional understanding of how Shakespeare wrote and how the quartos were published. I am not persuaded by his alternative, but he is certainly right that the common model is flawed. This earns my thanks.