CRITICISM

Alvis, John. “Derivative Loves are Labor Lost.” Renascence: Essays on Value in Literature 48, No. 4 (Summer 1996): 246-58.

Argues that in Love’s Labour’s Lost all elements of the plot, and its parallel subplot, serve to explore the nature of vanity and its consequences.

Bird, Christine M. “Games Courtiers Play in Love's Labour's Lost.” University of Hartford Studies in Literature 11, No. 1 (1979): 41-48.

Studies the way in which the game playing of the courtiers leads eventually to the promise of emotional intimacy.

Carroll, William C. The Great Feast of Language in Love's Labour's Lost. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976, 279 p.

Provides a book-length examination and interpretation of the play's language.

Curtis, Harry, Jr. “Four Woodcocks in a Dish: Shakespeare's Humanization of the Comic Perspective in Love's Labour's Lost.” Southern Humanities Review 13, No. 2 (Spring 1979): 115-24.

Maintains that the comic vision Shakespeare unveiled in Love's Labour's Lost is not a deviation from his more mature comic accomplishments, but is representative of the central motifs that turn up in later comedies.

Draudt, Manfred. “Holofernes and Mantuanus: How Stupid Is the Pedant of Love's Labour's Lost?” Anglia 109, Nos. 3-4 (1991): 443-51.

Maintains that while critics generally agree that Holofernes is intended as a satirical version of the pedantic schoolmaster, the nature and extent of his foolishness is debatable.

Hassel, R. Chris, Jr. “Love Versus Charity in Love's Labour's Lost.” Shakespeare Studies 10 (1977): 17-41.

Explores the play's treatment of the Elizabethan religious controversy between the Protestants and Catholics concerning various doctrinal issues.

Lamb, Mary Ellen. “The Nature of Topicality in Love's Labour's Lost.” Shakespeare Survey 38 (1985): 49-59.

Argues that contrary to commonly held critical opinion, Love's Labor's Lost was not designed to appeal specifically to aristocratic audiences; rather, its topical references would have been available to a wide range of spectators.

Maus, Katharine Eisaman. “Transfer of Title in Love's Labour's Lost: Language, Individualism, Gender.” In Shakespeare Left and Right, edited by Ivo Kamps, pp. 205-23. New York: Routledge, 1991.

Contends that significant linguistic issues in the play are inextricable from its concern, as a comedy, with the politics of sexuality and the social construction of gender identity.

Smidt, Kristian. “Shakespeare in Two Minds: Unconformities in Love's Labour's Lost.” English Studies 65, No. 3 (June 1984): 205-19.

Studies the way in which Love's Labor's Lost is shaped by Shakespeare's romantic and satirical moods, and discusses the “unconformities” resulting from the presence of both romance and satire within the play.

Turner, John. “Love's Labour's Lost: The Court at Play.” In Shakespeare: Out of Court: Dramatizations of Court Society, by Graham Holderness, Nick Potter, and John Turner, pp. 19-48. London: Macmillan, 1990.

Considers the competitiveness of court life in Love's Labour's Lost and the way it is manifested in the relationships among the members of the court.