The oldest hath borne most; we that are young
Shall never see so much nor live so long.
- Edgar

The stunning opening paragraph to Samuel Johnson‘s “Life of Savage;” i.e., his brief biography of Richard Savage, who was a friend of Johnson‘s and who became famous for his poetry in his day, though it is not well-regarded today.

Not for the non-specialist nor the faint-hearted—both because of its technical subject matter and its price, clocking in at over $50–but a thought-provoking read at its best moments and a good reference for bloated academics such as myself.

I have returned! I have just begun—after almost a year of it collecting dust on my shelf—this volume on political psychology with the timelessly catchy title of, “Social and Psychological Bases of Ideology and System Justification!”

Like others of the romances, this is a tragicomedy, with the emphasis on the tragic in the first half and the emphasis on comedy in the second half. It is quite possibly my favorite of the late romances (so far), despite the fact that I hated the famous last scene.

While only two-fifths of this play was actually written by Shakespeare, I think it is the one of his late romances by which I'm most intrigued. I think it's a fascinating commentary on the absurdity of violence for the sake of love and the stupidity of broken friendships, and in this way, more than any other of Shakespeare's plays, it mingles tragedy and comedy.

The characters in this play are pretty sterile. None of them has much of a personality or any complexity. However, the long speeches will not fail to move you, even when a despicable person like Wolsey speaks them, and they are some of Shakespeare's finest poetry. You could also say that it's a compelling portrayal of fortune's fickleness, but that seems like forcing profundity on what was clearly supposed to be a simple, enjoyable spectacle.

I thoroughly enjoyed this play. However, for me, it was not Rosalind but Jacques who was the highlight. That is a personal evaluation and not an objective assessment, because I saw a lot of myself in Jacques (and took Rosalind's jibes at him personally!). I can see how both characters would be a joy to experience on the stage, though, and can see why this play is considered one of Shakespeare's finest.

This is definitely one of Shakespeare's underrated gems. Harold Bloom calls it a "feast of language," and I must agree; I found myself slowing down and trying to savor every line of it. I also enjoyed how the ending wasn't as unambiguously joyous as Shakespeare's other comedies, as several of the characters are in mourning at the play's close. Aside from that, it also features some scenes that I can tell would be hilarious on-stage or on-screen.

Couldn't help but laugh out loud at this first paragraph of Arthur Goldwag's definition of liberalism!

It's no wonder many people don't want to believe that Shakespeare wrote this travesty of muddled character motivations and pointless gore. You can see right through how he sets up the plot simply for the maximum number of vendettas in order to ensure the maximum number of on-stage deaths. I want to believe that it's a parody of some sort, but something tells me it's just the work of a novice playwright with wobbly creative legs.

This is definitely one of Shakespeare's lesser works. Based on the ending, it appears to want to be a tragedy, but one can't help but think that King John had it coming to him, and it's nigh impossible to sympathize with him. Philip the Bastard does have some wonderful soliloquies and is a fun character, but is not enough to save this from being, thus far, my least favorite of the Bard's plays.

So far in my experience with Shakespeare, these three plays are the closest he's come to writing a real page-turner. They combine the lyricism of a poet with the suspense of a political thriller, complete with stand-out characters. Margaret, essentially an early version of Lady Macbeth, was stunning, and it's fascinating to see the young Richard beginning to show his sociopathic tendencies that would be so uncomfortably fun to see in Richard III.

Why, what is pomp, rule, reign, but earth and dust?
And, live we how we can, yet die we must.

This was a wonderful "speculative biography." By no means the most scholarly work, Burgess often fabricates entire scenarios based on what's plausible for the times and what details we do know. However, he is happy to let you know when he's going off on a limb, and it's so well-written that I can't help but not care much if it's one part fantasy for two parts fact. In fact, I think that's what made it so readable. Definitely recommend it.