The modernised one-volume Oxford Complete Works edited by Wells and Taylor has little of significance to offer that is not bettered by its competitors. Its general introduction is thin and bland, and the introductions to individual plays amount to little more than one-page notes. There are no explanatory notes of any kind to accompany the words on the page, and the glossary at the end of the book offers very little help indeed. Thus readers are largely left to flounder on their own. There are certainly, as much publicity has assured us, a number of new textual features, but these are often characterised by a craving for novelty rather than that they have proved convincing or useful to many readers: fewer and fewer readers today really want two texts of *King Lear*, and the number of people inclined to believe the editorial arguments in favour of the so-called "two-text theory" is decreasing rather than growing; similarly, there are no truly good reasons for calling Falstaff "Sir John Oldcastle", etc. As the scholars who have put the edition together are very reputable and their handling of the text does deserve the attention of academics, scholars like myself do, of course, want to own a copy. But I use it sporadically, and hardly feel like recommending it to the non-specialist, who will be much better served by buying, especially, David Bevington's edition, or else - though very much as a second choice - the Riverside, or, failing that - and very much as a third choice - the Norton. - Joost Daalder, Professor of English, Flinders University (South Australia)