A Midsummer Nights Dream, cover may vary

This is such a beautiful little book with a fantastic introduction.

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.

Very good play. Good edition. Shakespeare is always fun to read. Go and read this play and enjoy it. Entertaining.

Excellent IntroductionExcellent notesClear layoutI used this edition for my University studies in 2002… Twenty years later, I am homeschooling my friend’s girl, so I bought her this edition so that we could study, ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’ for her own education (she’s thirteen years-old).

This large print edition of one of Shakespeare's most charming comedies was invaluable to my husband Charly. Despite failing eyesight, Charly was able to continue his life-long study of the Bard's works and Elizabethan England with this book. He found the glossary of terms in the back especially helpful, and was delighted to have obtained a used copy from a library in England. The son of a Kentucky coal miner, Charly never got to visit the birthplace of his favorite author, but he also never doubted that Shakespeare was a right proper Kentucky Southern Gentleman. Thank you Elizabeth

hmmm, Shakespeare is more fun when you just get to read it and don't have to study the fun out of it, reading meaning into every tiny archaic word, but still.... for a short book it does go on a bit.SPOILERS AHEAD!!Bottom and his chums were pretty annoying when they were prancing about rehearsing there play - just shut up and get on with it, please! But then when they performed it, those stuck up fancy folk were sooo rude it made me hate them too. I mean, they play is rubbish, but at least they put the effort in, be polite at the very least, instead of sitting there trying to show everyone how smart you are by poking fun at the working class. It is not as if they weren't leaping around like nutters half the night before falling in and out of love at the whim of slightly confused fairies. And I do worry about this poor Indian boy who we never actually see.

A great read and essential for every household. Lovely introduction for anyone further interested in the backround of this play!

Do I have to say it? Shakespeare knew how to write!I grew up quite near to where his mother's house and his own house are located (my Nanna lives in the same village his Mum used to live in) and have grown up learning about the Bard of England.I have read some of his novels for my Shakespearean Literature course at uni and though I enjoyed a few, and disliked others, I absolutely loved A Midsummer Night's Dream. I liked it so much that I chose to do an oral presentation on his use of mythology in the novel.I highly recommend it!!