The Taming of the Shrew

By William Shakespeare

HarperCollins is proud to present its incredible range of best-loved, essential classics.

Bianca is beautiful and demure, with a plethora of wood-be suitors, but marriage is forbidden until her older sister Katherina finds a suitable match. The hitch? Fiery Katherina has sworn to deny the hand or demands of any would-be suitor. That is, until she meets her match in the wily Petrucio. As Katherina’s own sharp tongue is met by Petrucio’s feigned cruelty, the ‘shrew’ apparently capitulates. Or does she?

This controversial comic tale, famously adapted into Cole Porter’s Kiss Me Kate and 10 Things I Hate About You, has divided and amused audiences for over 400 years in an unforgettable battle of wits.

• Language: English
• Publisher: HarperCollins UK
• Release date: Sep 12, 2013
• ISBN: 9780007535262

William Shakespeare

William Shakespeare is widely regarded as the greatest playwright the world has seen. He produced an astonishing amount of work; 37 plays, 154 sonnets, and 5 poems. He died on 23rd April 1616, aged 52, and was buried in the Holy Trinity Church, Stratford.

Book preview

THE ALEXANDER SHAKESPEARE

General Editor

R.B. Kennedy

Additional notes and editing

Mike Gould

THE TAMING OF THE SHREW

William Shakespeare

CONTENTS

Cover

Title Page

Prefatory Note

The Theatre in Shakespeare’s Day

Shakespeare: A Timeline

Life & Times

Money in Shakespeare’s Day

Introduction

List of Characters

Induction

Scene I

Scene II

Act One

Scene I

Scene II

Act Two

Scene I

Act Three

Scene I

Scene II

Act Four

Scene I

Scene II

Scene III

Scene IV

Scene V

Act Five

Scene I

Scene II

Shakespeare: Words and Phrases

Copyright

About the Publisher

Prefatory Note

This Shakespeare play uses the full Alexander text. By keeping in mind the fact that the language has changed considerably in four hundred years, as have customs, jokes, and stage conventions, the editors have aimed at helping the modern reader – whether English is their mother tongue or not – to grasp the full significance of the play. The Notes, intended primarily for examination candidates, are presented in a simple, direct style. The needs of those unfamiliar with British culture have been specially considered.

Since quiet study of the printed word is unlikely to bring fully to life plays that were written directly for the public theatre, attention has been drawn to dramatic effects which are important in performance. The editors see Shakespeare’s plays as living works of art which can be enjoyed today on stage, film and television in many parts of the world.

Image Missing

An Elizabethan playhouse. Note the apron stage protruding into the auditorium, the space below it, the inner room at the rear of the stage, the gallery above the inner stage, the canopy over the main stage, and the absence of a roof over the audience.

The Theatre in Shakespeare’s Day

On the face of it, the conditions in the Elizabethan theatre were not such as to encourage great writers. The public playhouse itself was not very different from an ordinary inn-yard; it was open to the weather; among the spectators were often louts, pickpockets and prostitutes; some of the actors played up to the rowdy elements in the audience by inserting their own jokes into the authors’ lines, while others spoke their words loudly but unfeelingly; the presentation was often rough and noisy, with fireworks to represent storms and battles, and a table and a few chairs to represent a tavern; there were no actresses, so boys took the parts of women, even such subtle and mature ones as Cleopatra and Lady Macbeth; there was rarely any scenery at all in the modern sense. In fact, a quick inspection of the English theatre in the reign of Elizabeth I by a time-traveller from the twentieth century might well produce only one positive reaction: the costumes were often elaborate and beautiful.

Shakespeare himself makes frequent comments in his plays about the limitations of the playhouse and the actors of his time, often apologizing for them. At the beginning of Henry V the Prologue refers to the stage as ‘this unworthy scaffold’ and to the theatre building (the Globe, probably) as ‘this wooden O’, and emphasizes the urgent need for imagination in making up for all the deficiencies of presentation. In introducing Act IV the Chorus goes so far as to say:

… we shall much disgrace

With four or five most vile and ragged foils,

Right ill-dispos’d in brawl ridiculous,

The name of Agincourt, (lines 49–52)

In A Midsummer Night’s Dream (Act V, Scene i) he seems to dismiss actors with the words:

The best in this kind are but shadows.

Yet Elizabeth’s theatre, with all its faults, stimulated dramatists to a variety of achievement that has never been equalled and, in Shakespeare, produced one of the greatest writers in history. In spite of all his grumbles he seems to have been fascinated by the challenge that it presented him with. It is necessary to re-examine his theatre carefully in order to understand how he was able to achieve so much with the materials he chose to use. What sort of place was the Elizabethan playhouse in reality? What sort of people were these criticized actors? And what sort of audiences gave them their living?

The Development of the Theatre up to Shakespeare’s Time

For centuries in England noblemen had employed groups of skilled people to entertain them when required. Under Tudor rule, as England became more secure and united, actors such as these were given more freedom, and they often performed in public, while still acknowledging their ‘overlords’ (in the 1570s, for example, when Shakespeare was still a schoolboy at Stratford, one famous company was called ‘Lord Leicester’s Men’). London was rapidly becoming larger and more important in the second half of the sixteenth century, and many of the companies of actors took the opportunities offered to establish themselves at inns on the main roads leading to the City (for example, the Boar’s Head in Whitechapel and the Tabard in South-wark) or in the City itself. These groups of actors would come to an agreement with the inn-keeper which would give them the use of the yard for their performances after people had eaten and drunk well in the middle of the day. Before long, some inns were taken over completely by companies of players and thus became the first public theatres. In 1574 the officials of the City of London issued an order which shows clearly that these theatres were both popular and also offensive to some respectable people, because the order complains about ‘the inordinate haunting of great multitudes of people, specially youth, to plays interludes and shows; namely occasion of frays and quarrels, evil practices of incontinency in great inns …’ There is evidence that, on public holidays, the theatres on the banks of the Thames were crowded with noisy apprentices and tradesmen, but it would be wrong to think that audiences were always undiscriminating and loudmouthed. In spite of the disapproval of Puritans and the more staid members of society, by the 1590s, when Shakespeare’s plays were beginning to be performed, audiences consisted of a good cross-section of English society, nobility as well as workers, intellectuals as well as simple people out for a laugh; also (and in this respect English theatres were unique in Europe), it was quite normal for respectable women to attend plays. So Shakespeare had to write plays which would appeal to people of widely different kinds. He had to provide ‘something for everyone’ but at the same time to take care to unify the material so that it would not seem to fall into separate pieces as they watched it. A speech like that of the drunken porter in Macbeth could provide the ‘groundlings’ with a belly-laugh, but also held a deeper significance for those who could appreciate it. The audience he wrote for was one of a number of apparent drawbacks which Shakespeare was able to turn to his and our advantage.

Shakespeare’s Actors

Nor were all the actors of the time mere ‘rogues, vagabonds and sturdy beggars’ as some were described in a Statute of 1572. It is true that many of them had a hard life and earned very little money, but leading actors could become partners in the ownership of the theatres in which they acted: Shakespeare was a shareholder in the Globe and the Blackfriars theatres when he was an actor as well as a playwright. In any case, the attacks made on Elizabethan actors were usually directed at their morals and not at their acting ability; it is clear that many of them must have been good at their trade if they were able to interpret complex works like the great tragedies in such a way as to attract enthusiastic audiences. Undoubtedly some of the boys took the women’s parts with skill and confidence, since a man called Coryate, visiting Venice in 1611, expressed surprise that women could act as well as they: ‘I saw women act, a thing that I never saw before … and they performed it with as good a grace, action, gesture … as ever I saw any masculine actor.’ The quality of most of the actors who first presented Shakespeare’s plays is probably accurately summed up by Fynes Moryson, who wrote, ‘… as there be, in my opinion, more plays in London than in all the parts of the world I have seen, so do these players or comedians excel all other in the world.’

The Structure of the Public Theatre

Although the ‘purpose-built’ theatres were based on the inn-yards which had been used for play-acting, most of them were circular. The walls contained galleries on three storeys from which the wealthier patrons watched, they must have been something like the ‘boxes’ in a modern theatre, except that they held much larger numbers – as many as 1500. The ‘groundlings’ stood on the floor of the building, facing a raised stage which projected from the ‘stage-wall’, the main features of which were:

a small room opening on to the back of the main stage and on the same level as it (rear stage),

a gallery above this inner stage (upper stage),

canopy projecting from above the gallery over the main stage, to protect the actors from the weather (the 700 or 800 members of the audience who occupied the yard, or ‘pit’ as we call it today, had the sky above them).

In addition to these features there were dressing-rooms behind the stage and a space underneath it from which entrances could be made through trap-doors. All the acting areas – main stage, rear stage, upper stage and under stage – could be entered by actors directly from their dressing rooms, and all of them were used in productions of Shakespeare’s plays. For example, the inner stage, an almost cavelike structure, would have been where Ferdinand and Miranda are ‘discovered’ playing chess in the last act of The Tempest, while the upper stage was certainly the balcony from which Romeo climbs down in Act III of Romeo and Juliet.

It can be seen that such a building, simple but adaptable, was not really unsuited to the presentation of plays like Shakespeare’s. On the contrary, its simplicity guaranteed the minimum of distraction, while its shape and construction must have produced a sense of involvement on the part of the audience that modern producers would envy.

Other Resources of the Elizabethan Theatre

Although there were few attempts at scenery in the public theatre (painted backcloths were occasionally used in court performances), Shakespeare and his fellow playwrights were able to make use of a fair variety of ‘properties’, lists of such articles have survived: they include beds, tables, thrones, and also trees, walls, a gallows, a Trojan horse and a ‘Mouth of Hell’; in a list of properties belonging to the manager, Philip Henslowe, the curious item ‘two mossy banks’ appears. Possibly one of them was used for the

bank whereon the wild thyme blows,

Where oxlips and the nodding violet grows

in A Midsummer Night’s Dream

Reviews for The Taming of the Shrew

[mrslee_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This may be my favorite Shakespeare, but I haven't read them all yet. This is my favorite so far. I love the way the man keeps pushing in on Kate until she receives his love.

[vhartpowers · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

It's bawdy and crass; juvenile humor. I guess this explains why I enjoyed it in high school, but didn't enjoy it as much as an adult.

[bookomaniac-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Lluchthartige komedie. Over hoe de hevige Katherine trouwt met Petruccio en daardoor haar plaats in de maatschappij vindt waardoor haar rebels karakter “getemd” wordt; verschillende verhaallijnen, nogal rommelig, met typische rolomkeringen; thema van de ideale vrouw, nogal dubieus aangebracht. -brutaal optreden om Katherine te breken-vaders die hun dochters als koopwaar verhandelen-betekenis van de inleiding is duister-onverklaarbare wendingenUiteenlopende interpretaties over het optreden van Petruccio. Die gedraagt zich brutaal om Katherine uit evenwicht te brengen (“being mad herself, she is madly mated”), in act IV.1 licht hij zijn motieven toe. Bekende slotscène: uitval Katherine tegen ongehoorzame vrouwen (niet duidelijk wat het doel is): “Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper/Thy head, thy sovereign”

[madamxtra · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

What can I say...I love Shakespeare's poetic language, wit and his insight into the human condition. But, I must be honest and tell you that I had to force myself to finish this book because I'm an independent, liberated, modern woman and I don't think there's anything funny about the way Pet. mentally abused Kate. Here we have a lying rouge who is cast as a hero as he uses psychological war-fare, humiliation and starvation to bend the will of a wealthy woman, just to get her money. This is the kind of thing we read about in the news; some wealthy woman being taken-in by a playboy that she met on an internet dating site. It wasn't funny back in the day and it isn't funny now.Good thing he didn't try that with Lorena Bobbitt...SMILE!!!

[meandmybooks-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Well, Toto, we're a long way from Beatrice and Benedick here, that's for sure! This is among the plays that are Much better watched than read, if only because directors and actors can make subtle adaptations and add nuance to situations and characters who are, as written, fairly brutal and unattractive. Done “right,” this is a very entertaining play – I particularly enjoyed the BBC's “Shakespeare Retold” version, starring Shirley Henderson and Rufus Sewell. As with “Much Ado About Nothing,” though, “The Taming of the Shrew” features one interesting couple and one dull one. Bianca and her swain actually spend very little time together, but it's plenty. Katherine and Petruchio may or may not be suited to each other, but we'll never know because Petruchio has all the power and no qualms about using it. What “saves” the play is Katherine's own sheer nastiness, as evidenced by her unwarranted brutality to both her sister and her tutor. She's been bullying her family and servants, so we don't feel terribly sorry for her when she receives the same treatment from her new husband. The clowns in “Shrew” are irritating rather than witty, and the framing device adds little. Still, it's Shakespeare, and there are some clever wordplays, images, and amusing bits of dialog. And Katherine and Petruchio do seem to have arranged an amicable detente by the end, where we can feasibly imagine them going along for several years before one of them murders the other.

[meditationesmartini · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

It sounds like an extreme and ludicrous statement, but I don't actually know that Shakespeare has a more interpretable play. It all comes down to that moment at the end: Katherine's gonna come out and deliver her closing speech (and for those who still somehow see this as straight-up misogyny, consider all the past versions that haven't done so, and that the ultimate power of meaningmaking is here in Kate's hands--okay, and those of her director--which is easy enough to see as a definitive repudiation of Petruchio's efforts to take away her reality and signifying power with all the no-no-the-sun-is-the-moon stuff earlier). And I mean, relations between the sexes? A friend of mine says about class relations (which are also, naturally, at play here, and what is Kate from one perspective but another tinker, an overturner of the social order? A hero?), he says, "of course it's complicated, it's a gas, baby, you dig?" You can play the speech totally straight--but even then, like, what does Shakespeare think about it? Has Kate found strong manlove or been broken by a sadist?--and you can play it ironically, in about a billion permutations.So well done, Shakespeare. (You're suuuuuch a good writer. I'm sooooo impressed.) But here's what came to me watching this guy the other day at Bard on the Beach, not about that director's interpretation--which was basically "two stong-willed eccentrics find each other, embrace, and turn their rapier tongues on the rest of the world"--not about any interpretation at all, but about what the last scene says about real life. Because you can have your single simple reading of a play if you wanna and walk away and not have any problems come of it, but when you do that with real life there's that certain excess that'll always trip you up and mug you and leave you unsure where it all went wrong.So what came out at me was the way both things are true. Petruchio can king-of-the-castle Katherine around all he wants and it will always be repulsive, to our sensibilities as well as (it has been convincingly argued) those of the Elizabethans. That doesn't mean it's the whole story here. In that final scene, when Kate is the only obedient wife, what we see is a dark shadow over the future of these marriages--and leaving aside for the moment whether that includes Kate and Petruchio's and what the implications of that are, think about the others. Lucentio's marriage to Bianca and Hortensio's to the Widow may be under threat because the wives are not obedient--or maybe they're just gonna make their husbands into buffoons and that's in the normal way of things--but what is it that makes either of those eventualities a problem? It's that they're weaklings. And calling them out on that doesn't make Petruchio any less of a bully. But forget the bully thing for a second: he's also a man who knows what he wants and won't settle for any less. And in this milieu, Katherine doesn't have the same privilege--she has to be a shrew or a possession. But are the other wives much happier with their carping men? Not at all. The men still have all the power on paper, but their sense of manhood depends on a submission they're not going to be able to secure.And I hope we've left all the submission stuff behind. What we need in our relationships is to be responsible for ourselves. Kate's paradox is that in submitting completely to her husband she has total freedom to move--he kisses her hand rather than step on it. It's repulsive. But they're strong people who (perhaps? depending on your interpretation?) respect each other. And I think there's something to be said for a partner who just rides out your storms, who has themself enough in hand to make their expectations clear (thankfully, today this is a mutual process). And I have spent a lot of time trying to please people I was with and needing to protect them to feel okay myself, and that that's emotional brinksmanship and will never actually help them feel better, and then I'll feel distress too. The great thing about The Taming of the Shrew is to see a marriage without any tally of needs and catalogue of fears and litany of resentments and haunting cloud of failures--where whatever anyone does it'll be laughed off in the end. The question it leaves me with is whether the only way to have that is for marriage to be something even worse--a chattel relationship instead of one between messy, needy, hypersensitive equals.

[iamchrysanthemum · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

What an odd, misogynistic play. Most interesting was the induction with Christopher Sly, a drunkard who is tricked into believing he is a rich lord. This plot line, included to set up the whole identity switch storyline, is never resolved in my text. I know Shakespeare is considered a master playwright of the English language and I do truly appreciate his work, but isn't he a bit unoriginal at times? There's the whole "borrowing" stories from other authors and then the fact that many of his stories feature the same motifs--funny servants, identity mixups, instalove followed by marriages, rich Italians in search of dowries and hot wives, mean fathers. I guess the Elizabethan theatre-going crowd had a specific niche, and Shakespeare knew how to work within it. Which, if you think about it, isn't that different from our generation being obsessed with vampires and paranormal romances. In 5 centuries, will our descendants look back at our reading tastes and wonder why it all seems the same?

[leslie398 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The introductory scenes with Sly were a surprise to me! I was also somewhat surprised by how much of the musical Kiss Me Kate is directly from the play.

[dinadansfriend · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

A better play to see than read. There's room for a lot of physical comedy here, and I think it shows that WS was better at tragedy than broad farce. Still, it's noted as having been read four times. "Kiss Me, Kate!" is more fun.

[justagirlwithabook · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

I had to read this one when I was in high school for an AP Lit course (man, I hated that course). Lit teachers have so many opportunities to choose some really amazing, relevant lit, and while I think Shakespeare is still relevant today, the way this book was taught was miserable. There were moments when the discussions in class were interesting, but it wasn't any thanks to the instructor or the play itself, I don't think. Of course, in high school fashion we watched the movie afterwards, and I found I enjoyed it better (and actually understood the play better, too). It was okay, but not one of my favorites among the Shakespeare pile of plays.

[paradox98_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

My favorite Shakespeare comedy, and a personaly favorite in classical literature.

[mattviews · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Unlike any other Shakespeare's plays, THE TAMING OF THE SHREW has an induction, which lives up to its name in the sense that the prologue scene does indeed lead into the play that follows. It seems likely that Shakespeare had adopted the device from medieval narrative poetry, where it was extensively used to introduce a story in the form of a dream. In the induction, far more is involved than the mere setting of a scene and the informing to audience. In fact, Christopher Sly seems to have lapse into a dream as he is forced to adopt a new identity. The brief yet vigorous altercation between Sly and the hostess with which the induction begins is a curtain raiser for the dramatic struggle between Petruchio and Katherina that is to follow. Equally as significant is the Lord's instructions to his servant-boy as to the behavior he is to assume when he appears disguised as Sly's wife forebode the main theme of the play. THE TAMING OF THE SHREW has a powerful appeal for the Elizabethan audience at the time it opened because the struggle for mastery in a marriage remained a fact of existence and hot topics for writers. A true-to-life domestic scene opens the play and instantly grasps attention: Signor Baptista forbids all suitors to court his younger daughter Bianca until he finds a husband for the ill-tempered, difficult, and waspish elder daughter Katherina. She is notorious for her hot temper, foul tongue, and caprice. Out of jealousy and the qualm not remaining single, she often vents out her anger on her sister. Suitors of the younger sister, who decide to put aside their rivalry, contrive to find a match for Katherina. Gremio and Hortensio bear the cost of Petruchio's courting Katherina while Lucentio, who is madly in love with Bianca, and his crafty servant Tranio cunningly switch role to infiltrate the Baptista house. What inevitably follows is a facetious pursuit of love and a farcical melodrama that culminate in a riotously funny final scene in which Lucentio's real father, who has no clue of his son's betrothal, confronts the pedant-disguised impostor who reverse-accuses him of a charlatan. Equally as clueless of the entire crafty scheme is Baptista whom the suitors have tricked and outmaneuvered. He is consistently mistaken about everything and everybody, so that he does not even understand why Bianca later asks for his forgiveness. He and Vincentio are merely the butts for all the intrigues that go on throughout the play. THE TAMING OF THE SHREW maintains an irresistible appeal among the comedies owing to the intriguing trickery with which characters rival for courtship. Just as suspenseful and entertaining is Petruchio's calculated, punctilious campaign to tame his wife. His line of attack is psychological, although persuasive words carefully planned for each step accompany his actions. He somehow outsmarts his wife and deliberately outdoes her in his perversity and bad temper. The quintessential spleen of tantrum flourishes in the scenes in which Petruchio abuses his servants and tailor. His being abusive, tyrannical, violent, and capricious functions more than a reflection - it is evident of a caricature of Katherina through an exaggerated parody of her wild behavior. His evaluation of her mind is confirmed by her softening and surrender for she welcomes the opportunity of meeting an antagonist who will put up a good fight. THE TAMING OF THE SHREW is highly rhetorical (even more so than AS YOU LIKE IT). Whether it is Petruchio's aggressive, vituperative taming or the milder courting of Bianca, the play never lacks an elite style with which Shakespeare exploited language to a linguistic virtuosity. For example, Petruchio's taming distinguishes from the usual method that might involve violence. What differentiate his campaign are the subtlety, the sophistication, and the ingenuity of his conceiving of Katherina's mind. His perspicacious mind justifies the use of highly rhetorical, puny, and literary discourse that somehow alienates the ordinary speech in the play and paradoxically brings in a fuller, more intimate possession of his witty scheme.

[therebelprince · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

As always, a great edition from the Arden publishers.

[arten60 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Enjoyable, funny and entertaining Bacon was a gifted writer.

[knotbox · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Really funny. Although, yes, it is technically sexist. When I heard that last speech performed live, there was no real mutual respect it seemed, and maybe it was a little dull. But when the mutual respect is clear, you realize it isn't just Kate who has changed, but her husband as well. Thus it becomes clear that they respect each other, and truly, while it appears that she is 'beneath him' and always agreeing with everything he says, there is an air that she is only learning to not be contrary and she thus becomes able to be in a relationship, in a partnership.

[wealhtheowwylfing · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I bet every older sister secretly likes this play.

[collingsruth · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

I'm sure we could argue the feminist interpretation for ages, but though full of Shakespeare's usual wit I couldn't figure out what he was going for here and it ended up just being a frustrating read.

[paulinaturnsthepages · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

My second review (check out my review of The Count of Monte Cristo) and this book is an amazing play. I had to read this for school and I thought this was going to be boring and non-entertaining but, to my surprise, It is hilarious! This book is a clever comedy in which Shakespeare shows two very different sisters and a plot so complex and difficult It is interesting. Some people may think Shakespeare is dull and I can see why but, this is a book i recommend from middle school to the rest of your life. You see Bianca (the innocent, boy fanatic girl who is very vain) and Kate (a feminist who is more reserved to herself and never wants to marry). Kate is very strong and has her dignity. This play is a page turner for sure. I have also seen the movie and the TV series (now gone) and none of them compare to the humorous English vernacular of Shakespeare. (Even though Elizabeth Taylor plays one hell of a Kate!)- Paulina

[maccy_p · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This is a clever play. However, it revolves massively around the directors interpretation of Bianca (sweet and innocent, or scheming and bitchy) and more importantly on the dynamic between Petruchio and Katherine (does he break her, or does she finally understand him and willing go along with it). I really wanted it to be the later but, as a feminist, I couldn't understand how a free minded woman would say the things said in Kate's last speech.And one MAJOR nit pick; where did Sly go? He's there at the beginning, but not anywhere else.

[samlives2 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I recently read this in my tenth grade English class. Of course, the play itself was at it always is: hilarious and incredible. Every time I read something by Shakespeare, I marvel at his creativity, originality, and skill for crafting puns and witty wordplay.The version of this book that I read included many other sections relating to Shakespeare's works: his life, his writings, and how his plays were shown, plus a section entitled "A Modern Perspective," which was somewhat of an overview of the themes in the play and revealed many things people in my English class missed while reading the text (not that they actually looked at the extra stuff: that's like watching Lord of the Rings without the bonus footage). I found all of the extra details quite interesting and it gave me enough background to participate fully in class discussions where most of my peers were left behind. Thank you, Folger Library!

[engpunk77 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Read this twice, once for high school and once for college, and both times I despised it. I don't remember why, but I think it was some feminist outrage that I had...

[toufiq-35 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I read this play when I was in the sixth grade and at that time I did not completely understand the meaning of "male ego" or "abusive relationships". As the message hidden in this play depicts that women of those times had to succumb dutifully to their "chauvinist" husbands, years later I came to realize how the society of that era looked down upon the uprising and independent women of all times.

While the reason for this play may or may not have been to contemplate women rights and gender equality, nothing makes it anything less than an excellent read, perhaps a minute literary classic in my say!

First of all, notoriously famous for the dark comedy, this play in my opinion is the best Shakespearean Comedy. The play consisting of extremely comical, vivid and humorous energetic ploys never offered me a chance to put it down and stop reading.

From the beginning of the play the readers get an entertaining idea of how terrifying a shrew, the leading character Kate is because of her amusingly foul mouth and vicious temper. Pair that with an equally determined and witty leading male character, Petruchio, who employs comical methods to shape Kate, and you get a splendid comedy. The play proceeds with an interesting insight into how Kate gradually evolves into his devoted wife and a polite woman.

The characters and their dialogues fashion the utmost wit and brilliant excitement all through out the play. Every scene is composed of numerous hilarious and amusing acts that just grip the readers to continue being indulged in the entertaining story.

The play also stands out because of its unique structure. Most Shakespearean plays comprise of romance, banishment, and disguise as a key theme to the plot.
For instance, one never fails to identify the certain styles of Shakespeare; namely one method would be: Male characters in the beginning disguise themselves and they fall for the wrong women who were also disguised. However, everyone reconcile with their true one in the end after a series of farce incidents.
Another signature style would be: Groups of high ranked men and their king are banished to the forsaken islands or forests by a nemesis. Then the noble men and their king would regain power and get invited back in the end by the strange love marriage between the children of the king and his nemesis!

To a great relief this play consisted of none of those techniques which therefore was a remarkably fresh way of journeying through a wonderful Shakespeare comedy.

[jhudsui_1 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

I had to give it a second star because some of the jokes were funny but really, this is just horrible. I'm not saying it should never be performed because it's a part of our cultural heritage and significant for influencing a lot of later works but I really think it's unsuitable for casual performance, for entertainment of general audiences. I saw it performed at a summer park show and Petruccio's player kept stopping to apologize out of character because the audience was booing him so loudly.

[ashleigh_autumn · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This is honestly mu favorite work by Shakespeare. I love the humor within it. I have read this for classes I have performed Katherine's final Monologue. I know people find that this plays has become a past idea of thinking of how women should behave since we are in a modern day world that that works for men and women to be equal without bowing down. However, at the time this play was written, that was not yet the thinking. No matter what, this is and always will be a favorite of mine.

[anacarter-127109 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Amazing.....