Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 72. Thursday, 4 Oct 1990.
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 90 20:36:48 EDT
From: Steve <SURCC@CUNYVM>
Subject: 1.0061 Collected Works vs Paperback Editions
Comment: Re: SHK 1.0061 Collected Works vs Paperback Editions
Here's a latish reply to the "collected works" talk-about: I
try to hit my classes with a variety of editions and styles of text.
There's a wonderful comicbook *Macbeth* from Workman press for about
$8 US that I used one time, but not again because it was too hard to
figure out who was saying what. It was great reading, just bad as a
script. And in graduate classes I've on occasion worked solely from
xeroxed quartos and Folios. At a nickle or a dime a page, you're
setting these troopers on an interesting march into literary
documents for a very low cost. In *Books in Print* you can find
Avon's complete poems at an unreal price of 60 cents. Yes! So I
have everyone get the thing and we read Venus and Adonis, even in
my freshman introduction to comp and lit classes. For the
wonderful introductory material from the Riverside or ScottFroesman
anthologies I razor out those pages and the additional plates and
put them in a folder on library reserve. I'm particularly sensitive
to costs for my students; CCNY's average family income is about $16000.
When our folks work, it's not for pocketmoney, it's to afford pockets.
The most conventional source for texts recently has been the Bevington
Bantams. Good notes, good current supplementary material, valuable
sources. -- Oh, yes. May I suggest a way to avoid that book-bag
tilttilt? I razor out individual plays, staple and tape them into
neat fascicles, and carry them in a cut-down mailing envelope. When
they slip back into the original fat book, the lumps are hardly visible.
Students get a little giddy when they see this sacrilege, but aren't we
supposed to model that kind of behavior?
English Department, CCNY SURCC@cunyvm