A. L. Rowse (1903–1997)

Just a disaster, and I'm appalled by the people who gave this a five-star review. There's a fantastic review by the ever-reliable Jeanne Addison Roberts in Shakespeare Quarterly 1979 which is worth quoting: "the motivating spirit behind this spectacular non-book is clearly commercial".

Despite being published in 1978, A.L. Rowse's edition of Shakespeare breezily reprints a 1904 text (itself a copy of 19th century texts) which is itself an unusual decision, in light of the many worthy Shakespeare editions released in those intervening years, from the Arden to the Riverside. The introductions to each play are, as Roberts notes, "drawn almost entirely from [Rowse's] own earlier work" and are of the tossed-off variety, aiming to pontificate on a half-dozen received facts about the play without, it seems, much engagement with contemporary criticism. The margin glosses are surprisingly few and, while yes, Rowse can often be delightfully eccentric, as others note, he is also sometimes just passing the time. When pages pass with only three or four glosses, one feels that this can hardly be the Shakespeare for every household in the land. Sometimes, Rowse even uses "correct" as if he is just telling the reader what word should be there, rather than asserting his opinion in the crowded field of editors from 1709 to the present day.

The only reason this edition merited two stars was because there are many hundreds of pictures, most of them nineteenth-century, meaning at least there is some historical value to this work. Given the grotesque size of the thing, this is hardly worth the purchasing, particularly not with another forty years having passed in the interim.

To quote Roberts once more, "do we laugh or cry?"… (meer)

The Short Story is, of course, a genre in itself, and it's one I blow hot and cold on. On the one hand, I like the fact that I can read an entire story in a short time, and it doesn't require the same mental, and emotional commitment as the long form. On the other, I find them a bit clunky, and often quite unsatisfying.

I went through this collection in a couple of days, which is a measure of my enjoyment. That said, I found no real stand-out tales, and in fact there was at least one that would have done better to be left in obscurity. Nonetheless, they were largely enjoyable reads.

However, full disclosure: whether it's age, or some other factor, I have struggled for some years to find books (and films or TV) that give me the kind of chilling thrill one looks for in ghost stories, so it is highly likely that I am the problem! If you are more susceptible then this is probably a good collection of spine tinglers.

What I found most enthralling about this book is how it reflects the change in attitudes towards Paganism, Druidism, and the societies and cultures that gave us standing stones and stone circles. Even as recently as forty years ago, the entrenched Christian view 0f them as inherently evil is the foundation of every story within these covers. So much so that the publishers have printed a disclaimer in the front of the book.

It's all very 'Wicker Man'...

But don't let that put you off. If nothing else, it's nice to be reminded how far we have come.… (meer)

These are short portraits of ten significant twentieth century figures, acquaintances of the author, ranging from the poet Auden and the mystery writer Agatha Christie to political figures like Nancy Astor, Lord Beaverbrook, and Winston Churchill. Historians will be particularly interested to read Rowse's accounts of G.M. Trevelyan and Samuel Eliot Morison. Throughout, Rowse lives up to his reputation as a vain but witty controversialist. Some people will probably find Rowse's conceits to be "too much," but I find him to be more than tolerable in small doses.… (meer)