See, those are from the list that people have heard about, which stretches to around 15. There are 20 odd people don’t discuss much or read. Some of which are mature works.
Cymbeline for example, but the early works are on the forgettable side. On the other hand the number one where Shakespeare really compromises what he is all about in the better plays; that’s Henry V, the infamous ‘national anthem in 5 acts’
I like Titus, at least for the je ne regrette rien speech.
Come on! Claudio and Hero are nothing – but the Shakespeare canon just wouldn’t be complete without Benedick and Beatrice! Not to mention Dogberry!
I’ve never read or seen “King John” (I have read a summary by Isaac Asimov) but I understand it’s almost universally derided. Especially for its propagandistic mistreatment of Joan of Arc.
No, that was Henry IV Part 1. (Joan was a mite after John.) That is indeed my choice - I started reading Shakespeare in order of writing, and never quite got through that one. When I restarted in another order I made it.
John is fun in an absurd way. There is a scene where the people in a town call down to him that reminds me of Holy Grail. Titus is great fun. Henry VIII is worse than either of these, I think.
I like Titus Andronicus and 1 Henry VI a lot (and wrote significant chunks of my master’s thesis about the latter), but I’ve always thought The Two Gentlemen of Verona is very forgettable. It’s always a sign of trouble when the most interesting character in the play is a dog*.
The Witch of Edmonton may be an exception, but it’s different when the dog talks and is evil.