Well, the inquisitive daughter of my girlfriend stumped me again…
I ask you, my fellow ever-so-brilliant “Teeming Millions”, what would be considered the worst play/work of William Shakespeare?
She was vague on whether she wanted know by todays standards or when he was alive.
All opinions welcomed!
(Mods- This is kind of a poll so please move if you see fit. thanks.)
I find the two long poems “Venus and Adonis” and “The Rape of Lucrece” interminable.
If we are restricting the discussion to plays, then Titus Andronicus, The Merry Wives of Windsor or The Two Gentlemen of Verona ( though I don’t dislike the last as much as most people).
I’m not a big fan of Two Gents or Love’s Labors Lost - although LLL is the better of the two, most of it just doesn’t strike me as funny. Some of the early history stuff ain’t so great, neither [I think I’m thinking of the first two Henrys]. Titus is just weird - is it a spoof? Is it bad? Nobody seems to be sure.
If he actually wrote it, Edward III was pretty bad. Henry VIII also isn’t his best work.
I saw an excellent performance of The Two Gentlemen of Verona recently. Even though the ending is a bit sucky the rest of the play was still helluva well done. I guess it all depends on the actors/director etc. They can make it quite decent with a bit of ingenuity and imagination.
Of all of his plays I’ve seen I’ve got to go with Two Gentlemen of Verona (and in fairness I haven’t seen all of the histories, nor some of those that are of more questionable origin). While a decent troop can make it watchable and it’s worth seeing if you’re interested in Shakespeare just to observe the evolution of his work I can’t recommend it to anyone. It has the elements that will show up regularly in later works but it lacks any of the richness that makes Shakespeare worth watching.
My personal least favourite is The Comedy of Errors. It just feels … formulaic, really. As if it was written to fulfil a contractual obligation.
I like CoE. Heh, the thing with it is that (while Shakespeare didn’t invent the form either), it’s been done 60,000,000,000,000 times SINCE - and without a whole lot of variation. I think that could make it seem less funny than it is.
An on-stage rape, beheadings & misc. savagry. It could be a Hollywood blockbuster. :rolleyes:
Instead, it sucks. A summary. Linky-link
It has been done. The daughter let me borrow her 2 disk DVD copy yesterday. I haven’t watched it yet…heard it is 'hella gory…it does star Anthony Hopkins, though.
I agree with those who said “Comedy of Errors”. That was the only one that came to mind when she asked.
Thanks for the input you guys. It has helped!
I’d go with “Henry VIII,” which isn’t very interesting, and often seems to be little more than an attempt to curry favor with Queen Elizabeth I.
I seem to be alone on this, but I hate Henry V. It’s a little too preachy and patriotic for my taste. Kind of a Tudor version of ‘Rambo’.
Which must have been difficult, as it was written about ten years after she died! 
Actually – I’ve done a bit of reading on this recently – although the craze for history plays seems to have passed by the time of James’ accession, after Elizabeth died there was a wave of fairly nostalgic plays about the Tudors. Heywood’s two-part If You Know Not Me, You Know No Body (a celebration of Queen Elizabeth) is another example.
(If you want to talk about currying favor with the Queen, Richard III is probably a better case, although there you could also say it’s not wise to portray the grandfather of the reigning queen in a bad light! And there were a few other things in the history plays, occasionally and wrongly dismissed as Tudor propaganda, that definitely set off the censors…)
I have a certain fondness for poorly regarded Shakespeare plays – I genuinely like Titus Andronicus and especially Henry VI (see the Henry VIs in performance and then try to tell me they’re boring) but if we’re just going to talk about personal least favorites mine is Julius Caesar. I recognize its artistic merit but…argh.
(BTW, the rape in Titus is in fact offstage. :eek: )
You know, I hate to say this, but the more I think about it, I think Shakespeare’s worst is Hamlet VI: The Revenge.
Goodness, how could anybody not like Titus Andronicus? Heck, it’s worth reading for the stage directions alone (“Enter a messenger with two heads and a hand.”) And having seen two excellent performances of Love’s Labour’s Lost and one of Merry Wives, I’d say they both play better than they read.
I thought King John was singularly forgettable, but I don’t really remember enough about it to offer any further criticism.
In my personal opinion:
“Love’s Labour’s Lost” was probably very funny then, but most of Shakespeare’s references are impossible for us to understand now.
“Pericles” feels as if two different people wrote it (which probably was the case).
“Two Gentlemen of Verona” has some bad continuity flaws.
While not a dislike, I detest “Romeo and Juliet”, probably due to overexposure.
Count me in as a Titus fan. One has to remember that it was an early work written very much to cash in on the craze for bloody revenge dramas begun by Thomas Kyd’s The Spanish Tragedy. Bloody it may be, but there’s no denying that Titus has a certain gusto in its gore.
The plays I don’t care for are A Winter’s Tale and Timon of Athens. They’re both poorly plotted and tedious in the extreme.
Troilus and Cressida.
I wonder about the value of a thread like this. The longer it goes on, the more we find that Shakespeare is not well liked at all 
V
Judging by the message board poll so far, it seems “Titus Andronicus” is starting to be Shakespeare’s “Plan 9 From Outer Space”.
Then again, have all of the people responding read ALL 37 of Shakespeare’s plays? (I know I haven’t). Here’s a link that lists all 37:
http://www.1728.com/page10.htm
Just a list, no summaries, critiques, etc.