I give this book 5 stars because William Shakespeare was a great and imaginative writer who wrote lots of different types of plays like comedies and tragedies and politics. In this book they are written more like short stories than plays. I liked some more than others so I am going to rate them here in order of favourite to least favourite.

King Lear - 5 stars -it was my favourite - such interesting characters but so tragic
Midsummers Night Dream - 5 stars - very funny and loved the magic
Romeo and Juliet - 5 stars - so sweet and sad. The families should have let them be together.
The Winter's Tale - 5 stars - very enjoyable
Pericles, Prince of Tyre - 5 stars - a good adventure; sort of fairy-tale like.
Hamlet - 5 stars - so much betrayal
Macbeth- 4 stars - Macbeth and his wife were so mean!
Othello - 4 stars - kind of similar to the Winter's Tale but much worse because he actually killed his wife and The Winter's Tale ended happily.
Cymberline - 4 stars
As You like it - 4 stars
The Tempest - 4 stars
Comedy of errors - 4 stars - quite interesting but who would name their twins the same name? Like what?
Timon of Athens - 4 stars
All's Well that ends well - 3 stars. Bertram didn't deserve Helena!
Much ado about nothing - 3 stars
Twelth Night - 3 stars.
The Two gentlemen of Verona - 3 stars
Merchant of Venice - 2 stars - I didn't really like that one, I thought it was racist and yuck.
Taming of the Shrew - 1 star - aagh! So sexist
Measure for Measure - 1 star - too political and so boring.

I love Shakespeare and have had the opportunity to see many of his plays at the Stratford Festival.

I picked this book because I want to share his writing with my students. I want to get them interested in the stories before presenting the full play.

Also, this way the class can pick which play they want to read and study.

7.3.12. I just finished the book. I didn't much particularly like it. I don't think that I will have my student's read it after all.

While reading some of the summaries I felt like my intelligence was being insulted.

Granted, the Lambs wrote it during a time when women didn't get university educations, there were still smart people out there who could understand the Bard without the contents being dumbed down.

So if one is looking for a summaries on Shakespeare's plays pass this one up.

3 stars & 3/10 hearts. This is a well-done retelling of Shakespeare’s plays. Like I mentioned in my review of Nesbit’sBeautiful Stories from Shakespeare for Children, I recommend reading both Nesbit and Lamb before or after reading each play; it’s very helpful. Lamb is a little more grown-up than Nesbit, so they don’t take out quite as much content as Nesbit does, but they also have more detail and better flow.

No lo abandono, lo aparco con los dos primeros cuentos leídos ("La tempestad" y "Sueño de una noche de verano"). Es una adaptación de las obras teatrales de Shakespeare en formato cuento y prefiero leer antes las obras, eso es todo. El libro es ameno y ágil, pero quiero leer antes las originales, las que me faltan. (19/08/2018)

I'm not so sure that this book is appropriately titled. Many of the adaptations in here are too far above the developmental level of what I consider to be "children," but they are probably perfectly appropriate for kids between 12 and oh, 14 or 15 years old. Kids edging into 14, 15, and certainly 16 years old should be receiving some exposure to William Shakespeare's own writing, but I think that this book might help them understand the arc of some of Shakespeare's plays better.

Romeo and Juliet: Romeo and Juliet benefited from being adapted into a story in this book. It's not one of my favorite plays--it's too melodramatic and our main characters fall in love too hard too fast. I find it very unbelievable. In this format, though, the story becomes much more in the vein of Snow White or Sleeping Beauty. It becomes a fairy tale love story, and head-over-heels, love-at-first-sight love is ok in those kind of stories. Because of the fairy tale like nature of this interpretation of the play, kids younger than 12 could probably understand this story if they have a suitably advanced vocabulary. The language is no longer Shakespearian, but the story is written with Victorian flourish and flare, which is still pretty formal.

The Tempest: I've never understood all the fuss about The Tempest, and this adaptation doesn't change my mind. I think kids under 12 would understand this story, I'm just not sure they'd find it to be that fascinating. It's a little bit of a boring story as told in this book, and it takes a lot to grab and hold kids' attention these days. I'm not sure this would do it.

Hamlet: Considerably well done adaptation. This story would appeal strongly to boys, I would imagine (that's not say that girls won't also like it), and unlike Shakespeare's play, this adaptation is easy to understand. Kids under 12 would understand this story just fine. Of course, there is the question of whether or not this is an appropriate story for kids under 12, but that's for parents to decide.

A Midsummer Night's Dream: It is what it was meant to be; a fairy tale. I suppose if the kid in question likes fairy tales, then he or she might enjoy A Midsummer Night's Dream. The kids in my life wouldn't latch on to this, however, because the love interests do get a little tangled up. Kids under 12 might find this to be a bit confusing.

King Lear: I think this is much too advanced for kids under 13 or so. Young kids just aren't at a developmental point in their lives to be able to appreciate the emotions/machinations/motivations in King Lear. Young kids are still too self-absorbed (in the developmental sense, not the ego sense) to be able to really appreciate this story to the fullest extent possible. I'm fairly sure it would sail over their heads. I think this is a play/story best served when a kid can think more outwardly than inwardly.

The Taming of the Shrew: Pretty much my favorite Shakespeare play, but this story is not well-served in this retelling. Kate's "shrewishness" is glossed over in this story, and the tug-of-war between Kate and Petruchio is virtually non-existent. Without the tug-of-war and battle-of-the-wills, Petruchio's behavior is out of context, and he comes across as plainly abusive. We don't see Kate getting a taste of her own medicine, we see her being demeaned and abused. I'd not read this version of the story to girls, and certainly not to boys, and I don't even think this version is appropriate for teenagers, who are often struggling with gender roles and identity.

Macbeth: Another adaptation that's probably too complex for younger kids. The language in this one is very Victorian again, and if that could be modernized a bit, then I think kids under 12 could understand the story here, I just don't think they'd understand the depth of it. For an excellent adaptation of the play, teens and adults should take a look at Macbeth by A.J. Hartley and David Hewson. That was gooood....

Much Ado About Nothing: Early teens (girls in particular?) may like this adaptation, and may even identify with it. It's full of fix-ups and broken hearts, reconciliations, and gossip... Loaded with teen angst. Kids under 11 or 12 would probably be bored with this one, and kids past 14 would probably think it's as silly as I do. Not one of my favorite Shakespeare stories, can you tell?

Othello: Well, the opening sentences of this adaptation instruct readers (who the authors expected to be mostly female, as stated in their introduction) that they can admire Desdemona for choosing a black man, but she should not be imitated. There is much focus in this adaptation as to why Othello is not suitable for a white woman--in fact, I think these authors obsessed over Othello's color more than Shakespeare did. This made me uncomfortable, and I don't think I'd want to read this adaptation to kids. Victorian attitudes are too present in this tale, and I think they were more degrading than the original was. As far as the story itself goes, Iago's plotting and duplicity are too muted, so it's hard to really get in there and see how artfully he poisoned Othello against Desdemona. The end is still heartbreaking, but kids over 14 or so should try reading the original Shakespeare to really feel this play. I'm not sure that this story is appropriate for younger kids, but again, that's a parent's call.

Twelfth Night: Maybe I'm shallow, but this play is so ridiculous and annoying, and this adaptation doesn't help it at all. I can just hear my niece saying something like, "What?! She can't tell that Viola's a lady?!" Or, "He actually married her?!? He just met her like five seconds ago!" My point is, kids today are way too savvy to accept the kind of shenanigans that go on in this story. And I, for one, am glad they are.

Charles si occupò della sorella fino alla morte; a un certo punto la follia di Mary divenne così grave, che lui dovette trasferirsi con lei in un istituto psichiatrico privato, e là morì all'età di 59 anni, il fisico minato dall'alcol. Sua sorella gli sopravvisse 12 anni, ormai del tutto pazza. Furono riuniti nella stessa tomba

If you are looking for a brief, relatively accessible, summary of Shakespeare's plays, this fits the bill. It took me a while to get into the style, but once I did, I began to very much appreciate the presentation of the essence of each story. Of course much is lost, but they do seek to maintain some of the key lines in the key scenes of the various plays. I also like the fact that it was written a long time ago for children and yet it still works. I'm not sure kids today would appreciate it, but if you are heading to a Shakespeare play and need a brief summary of the essentials of the play, you get it here in story form. I'd give it 4.5 stars if I could. It's definitely a keeper.

This is my favourite collection of Shakespeare's work, what I love about it is the style of prose that make the whole thing accessible for everyone who's curious to know about Shakespeare's plays

I vaguely recall some years ago Venezuela set up a government department called the Ministry of Love. The idea was to inculcate in poor women the understanding that their babies from the very moment they were born would respond to any stimuli. Poverty shouldn't stop mothers from giving their babies experience of smell and sound and touch and...

My parents certainly wanted that for us. Knowing how poor we were when I was little, I still marvel at the amazing opportunities they conjured up for us to experience so much of the world in an utterly non-judgmental fashion. There was nothing we wouldn't go to, car races or the football as readily as the art gallery or the library. But for me the best, the most wonderful thing we did, was theatre.

I was maybe seven, and the oldest of four children, when we went to our first Shakespeare. We were so lucky that my parents had a brilliant understanding of how to make this easy. We always read the story - Charles Lamb, of course - first and we'd discuss it.

Then my father would play a game with us. He knew quite a few Shakespeare plays by heart and we'd get to test him. Well, being the oldest and best at reading, I got the supporting role. I'd read a line from the play and he'd say who said it and when. He was always right, I'd be reduced to trying things like 'Halt' and we'd wait with breath bated while he decided if that was guard one or guard two. It was exciting!

Once we got there, we'd sit in the front row, entranced. How could Shakespeare not be the most wonderful thing after that start?

This was a really interesting take in Shakespeare's plays. Presented in short story form, some of Shakespeare's most famous plays became easily understandable and incredibly engaging. This book gave me a new appreciation for Shakespeare's incredible works.

The prize I was awarded for finishing top of First Form (year seven) at Williamstown High in 1965. It seems I peaked at age twelve: I've been in slow decline ever since. I did wonder what these Lamb people had to do with writing Shakespeare. The illustrations by the Czech artist Karel Svolinsky are brilliant.

For a book originally penned by siblings Charles and Mary Lamb in 1807, their generally brilliant and delightfully readable prose adaptations of twenty of William Shakespeare’s plays, their Tales From Shakespeare, has in my opinion truly held up and aged remarkably well (and is seemingly also still in current print, although some of the out of print earlier editions of Tales From Shakespeare with Arthur Rackham’s visually stunning accompanying artwork are certainly and in my opinion well worth investigating and checking out, but of course as collectible often rather dear price wise as well). And yes indeed, I also do rather wish that I had encountered Tales From Shakespeare as a young reader (for even though I did totally enjoy reading Shakespeare plays in junior and senior high English, if I had read Tales From Shakespeare prior to that, I do think I would have had more of an appreciation of the Bard of Avon, and yes, some of the more complex tragedies we read for school, such as Hamlet and King Lear, they would most definitely and likely have been easier to understand and less complicated).

But as much as I have truly enjoyed Tales From Shakespeare and do consider it a wonderful prose adaptation of and introduction to William Shakespeare’s comedies and tragedies (with most of the comedies being rendered by Mary Lamb and the tragedies by her brother Charles Lamb), personally, I am also rather furious and flabbergasted that the Lambs have included neither ANY of the British history plays nor the so-called Roman dramas. And since sadly and unfortunately, this shortcoming of course means that some of my very favourite Shakespeare plays, like Henry IV (parts one and two), Henry V, Julius Caesar and Anthony and Cleopatra are therefore really and truly missing in action, I absolutely cannot and will not completely consider Tales From Shakespeare as a personal favourite and am indeed annoyed enough with regard to the British history and the Roman plays having been left out of Tales From Shakespeare that I will only be able to consider a three star ranking, a high three star rating no doubt and I do still highly recommend Tales From Shakespeare but the gaps, that certain types of Shakespeare plays are seemingly simply en masse being ignored by Charles and Mary Lamb, this does indeed rather majorly bother me.

And as a small caveat if parents are planning on using Tales From Shakespeare to introduce the Bard of Avon and his plays to their children, considering that Mary Lamb suffered from serious mental imbalances for most of her life and actually wrote her contributions to Tales From Shakespeare whilst incarcerated at a sanatorium because she had stabbed her mother to death, it might well be prudent to make sure that children are able to sufficiently handle this information before confronting them with this (and that yes, there also might indeed and actually be questions raised with regard to Mary Lamb’s matricide and for example if this equally might have affected Mary Lamb’s adaptations of Shakespeare).