Shakespeare, William. "Love's Labor's Lost (Folio 1, 1623)." Love's Labor's Lost (Folio 1,
1623). University of Victoria, Ed. Timothy Billings. N.p., 10 Oct. 2016. Web. 10 Oct. 2016.
This website gives the reader a multitude of options for close reading of the text within
Shakespeare’s Love’s Labour’s Lost. It gives us the Folio I from 1623. Timothy Billings gives
the reader an Olde English translation of the play. This edited version is written as if spoken by
the actors themselves. So it gives the reader an idea of how each word would sound by how it is
spelled. For example in the text, “Liue registred vpon our brazen
Tombes” (internetshakespeare.uvic.ca) it would be translated in plain English “Live registered
upon our brazen tombs”.
Within the first example we can see certain stressed parts of words such as stred in
“registred” and the vuh sound in “vpon”. Perhaps the performer is meant to have read it this way
or an accent was used to perform the line. This edited translation of the play paints a picture for
the reader/audience of how the play would have sounded live when it was first performed. Also
there are different spellings of certain character’s names to further show a different
pronunciation of the text. Instead of Biron, Dumain and Longaville within our textbook, this site
gives use Berowne, Dumaine and Longauill. This translation creates a performance for the
reader/audience and it helps them understand how it could have been portrayed.
Shakespeare, William. "Love's Labour's Lost." OpenSourceShakespeare. George Mason
University, 2003. Web. 10 Oct. 2016.
This website offers a more different and straight forward approach to translating and
reading Shakespeare’s Love’s Labour’s Lost. It is written in plain English with little to no
change in spelling or language. The George Mason University edition gives the reader and one to
one rendition of the language. This creates a more open and easily read version for new
incoming readers who are looking to get into Shakespeare. This can be considered to be a
gateway readily available version for those who are unfamiliar with Shakespeare’s works or who
have trouble understanding Olde English.
To reference the previous annotated bibliography where the word registered is spelled
“registred” it is instead spelled “regeister’d. The spelling is in modern English and it still keeps
the sound and meaning of the word without digressing its purpose. It keeps the common English
flow and does not completely go back into the original translation. With a couple of apostrophe
d’s and some small pronouns, used it does not stray too far away from what the text is trying to
show the reader. This translation is a more open version for new readers and helps them
understand the text a lot easier. I believe if this version was shown first to those who are not
acquainted with Shakespeare at all, it would help them understand the language, the production
and the flow of the play without having to stop reread a line to understand it.
Back to the Future II. Dir. Robert Zemeckis. By Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale. Screenplay by
Bob Gale. Perf. Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd. Universal Pictures, July 3, 1985. Web. 10
Okay, I understand that this is a stretch but bear with me here. So you ask, how does
Robert Zemeckis’ Back to the Future II fit within Shakespeare’s Love’s Labour’s Lost act I? It
connects through the pact between The King, Biron, Longaville, and Dumain, to not speak,
fraternize or even look at a woman to Marty and the Doctor Emmett Brown’s promise to not
mess with anything in the past that can greatly alter their future. But, we both understand that in
each case, it still happens. This is where it helps the reader, follow along to understand the
meaning of consequence and extreme foreshadowing.
Back to the pact between The King and his lords where they end up going against the
pact and falling in love with different women. This leads to a comical sequence of events of the
men trying to woo the women with their charms and poetry. In a more darker and serious tone,
Marty decides to take back a pamphlet that has a list of victories from various teams across
multiple sports, accidently the antagonist of the film, future old man Biff Tannen steals it, goes
back in time to his younger self and instructs him to use the pamphlet instead. This causes a
butterfly ripple effect where a darker future for Marty and The Doc occurs.
This domino effect teaches the reader the meaning of foreshadowing within
Shakespeare’s plays. Like the use of Chekhov’s Gun through words, if it is said, it is necessary to
happen or go against. The act to go against the pact leads to comedic events for The King and his
Lords, from them dressing up as women, to them hiding their love for the women from one
another. In Back to the Future II it leads to a drastically altered timeline where Marty’s step-
father is Biff Tannen instead and everything has gone to run. Even though both stories end
significantly different in terms of what is a resolved ending, the king and his lords do not woo
the women, to Marty setting everything straight. Following the act of the promise/pact to how
naturally rebelling against it, helps the reader understand that these characters are still human
too, with goofy or serious flaws that propel the plot.
Als, Hilton. “A Worthy ‘Love’s Labor’s Lost’”. The New Yorker, 2013.
Als’ article describes Love’s Labor’s Lost’s newest rendition paying homage to the original Shakespearean play. Als highlights the Alex Timber’s adaptation by making this play a contemporary version without blending its true plot away. This article represents the most recent version of the play in a very innovative and entertaining way, with the mention of other pop culture like Clueless, appealing to millennials. The plays twist on revival can have audiences wonder how much of the play was used originally in the newer version. This keeps Love’s Labor’s Lost’s title in the wind and Shakespeare’s name still reigning.
Metz, G. Harold. “"Wonne" Is "Lost, Quite Lost"”. JSTOR, Modern Language Studies. 1986.
Metz mentions Love’s Labor’s Lost in the sense that there could have been a sequel to the play. Love’s Labor’s Wonne, would have been the title but according to Metz, there was no trace. Metz describes in the remaining pages that it could have been hidden or rejected for various reason. This article comes into use in the sense that Love’s Labor’s Lost was not finished to begin with. This idea leaves readers with a sense that the play was not necessarily meant to end.
Wieland, Reilly. “My One Exception to the ‘I Don’t Like Shakespeare’ Rule”. The Blog, The Huffington Post. 2016.
Wieland blogs about LLL and the fact that this is the only one of Shakespeare’s plays she finds enjoyable. She goes on to discuss the admiration of his sonnets but never wanting to read a play for sheer enjoyment until LLL. Not only does she enjoy the plot, and strength of women in the play but she relates some of what happens in the play to pop culture, like Mean Girls. This is important to seeing how much pop culture can be seen and related through older works, making it easier and more relatable to understand.