What does that have to do with Shakespeare? He didn’t write any books.
Sorry OP, this is the acid test of Shakespeare. If you’re too dumb to work a TOC, you’re too dumb to read Shakespeare.
I wish you would make up your mind. First you post to inform me that I have been stupid all my life for not embracing an arrangement of Shakespeare’s works that is useful only to scholars, and then you follow up with a post that says that I’m missing the point if I take Shakespeare too seriously, since he’s meant for entertainment. In fact, your second post makes me wonder why his plays are published in book form at all, let alone assigned to be read by millions of students every year.
You also undercut your assertion that Harry Potter is a stupid analogy. I agree it wasn’t a great analogy the first time I used it, talking about the order of the chapters, but in the post you quoted, I used it as an example of books that people read for enjoyment, rather than to study the author’s development. Which is pretty much how you said I should treat Shakespeare. I’m so confused.
I’m also confused about who this Ghoete fellow might be; I guess only smart people have heard of him. But if he wrote stories about a bunch of sequential kings, I would want them to be in historical order, too, regardless of when he wrote them. In fact, I’d sell my soul if it would make the world conform to my desires.
Sorry, I thought it was clear that we were talking about books containing his plays.
My post has nothing do with taking Shakespeare seriously or as entertainment. It’s about being annoyed at not being able to read in order something that was never intended to have an order, or be read.
My apologies for not acknowledging your point that Shakespeare can be read for enjoyment. But unlike Harry Potter and series of novels in general, the very creation of collections of a particular author’s plays is to some extent about reading to learn about the writer. That’s certainly why it’s assigned in schools.
Well played sir. Very well played. 
I’m not even annoyed with myself over that typo now.
Can’t argue with that. But I also think it’s dumb to not want to improve things, just because they were good enough for Moses. And unless I missed it, nobody has given any reason why alphabetical order wouldn’t be an improvement.
But they’re not novels, they’re collections, and they’re not how his plays were intended to be consumed. His plays aren’t based on his writing, his plays *are *his writing.
Besides, it’s not as if someone ever read Henry IV in TOC and wondered “What happens next?” Shakespeare anthologies are written for people who already know Shakespeare’s plays.
I guess I don’t really see it as an improvement. I don’t have a problem with it and while my current anthology has them arranged chronologically, if I bought a copy later that had them alphabetically, I wouldn’t mind. But it’s not striking me as some crime against common sense. Dictionaries are alphabetical because of the sheer volume of entries. A TOC of Shakespeare’s plays takes up at most a page. It’s just not that hard to find the one you’re looking for.
OK, let’s recap this thread.
We have established that I am too stupid to form an analogy, and too dumb to use a table of contents.
More importantly, we have established that Shakespeare’s plays are not intended to be read in any particular order, or read at all, or read by anyone who doesn’t already know them (I’ll let you guys resolve that among yourselves).
What we have not established is why, given the above, it is so important to arrange them in order of composition. If Shakespeare didn’t care, why do you? What do you have against making them more accessible to the vast unwashed?
So college students can write papers on the thematic differences between the Early Plays and the Late Plays.
In the grand scheme of things, no, it’s not that hard. Just like it’s not that hard to get up and turn the knob on a TV. But when remote controls were invented, were there people saying, “If you’re too dumb to turn a knob, you’re too dumb to watch TV”?
Arranging the plays in alphabetical order, with a list of the order of composition on the inside front cover, would convey every benefit to scholars that the 1906 order does, with the added benefit that EVERYBODY, scholars and laymen alike, would be able to easily find the plays without needing the TOC. I have yet to read why that isn’t a desirable outcome.
Like they won’t just copy whatever Wikipedia says about it.
The New Testament would also become confusing if it was published in composition order. Paul’s letters were all written before the Gospels.
Simple answer; buy each play individually. I did that, because I like to read them in order of thickness.
Just retitle it to Ze Revelation of St. John the Divine. Easy peasy.
Announcer, whispering: We’ve secretly replaced these strudents’ copies of the works of The Bard with Folger’s Shakespeare. Let’s see if they can tell the difference.
Now that’s funny.