Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.78 AVERAGE
3.78 AVERAGE
funny
informative
fast-paced
There are very few definitively known facts about William Shakespeare, and over the centuries, scholars have speculated exhaustively on possible events in his life and how they may have impacted his writing. (E.g.- some think that he traveled to Italy during one of England's periodic plague epidemics, and this is why he wrote several plays set in Italy.) This book seeks to clarify what is actually known about Shakespeare's life, while also describing and evaluating some of the theories. It is a light, brief account of the man's life- not so much his writing- and is intended for the general public and not for historians or scholars of literature. I found the book largely enjoyable, even if Bryson didn't quite manage to suppress his fanboyism... I suppose that one just has to resign oneself to a certain amount of adulation when Shakespeare is the topic.
funny
informative
reflective
fast-paced
informative
relaxing
informative
relaxing
medium-paced
Right up front Bryson tells you we hardly know anything about Shakespeare. So, you figure, how'd he manage to write 200+ pages? It's a cutural study of the period, and a good one. It's in his usual snappy style, but if you've ever read an academic book about the period, you can skip it. If you haven't, this is a good one.
funny
informative
medium-paced
More academic I think than some of Bryson’s other works, this was still quite fascinating and even humorous when clearly quashing the weird conspiracy theories surrounding Shakespeare.
Okay, really it should be 3 stars, but it's engaging enough to win the 4th on pure charm.
What I loved most was how frequently Bryson reminds the reader that there is no evidence for certain conjectures -- but when there IS evidence, he presents it clearly. He gives balanced pros and cons to theories that could go either way, and he addresses the history of faulty and fraudulent Shakespearean scholarship. As for the authorship debate, he refutes the Baconian and Oxfordian arguments with a hilarious, "We have no proof Shakespeare owned any pants or shoes, either."
Also, he states outright that Shakespeare can be read as a gay poet and dramatist. No dithering. He also discusses the sonnets and the arguments concerning their assumed recipients at length, and reminds readers that James I used to make out with handsome young men in the midst of performing court business.
There were also interesting interviews with archivists that put the state and difficultly of the scholarship itself into context. My inner librarian was very happy about that.
The parts of the book concerning the history of the competing theatres didn't work for me at all, however. It was brief, confusing, and seemed possibly to conflate entirely different buildings, although I actually didn't stop to track down the discrepancies. The Ackroyd book was much clearer on what happened with which property under whose ownership (or tenancy) when, and Ackroyd's various histories of London and Britain lead me to trust his research in this and other questions of setting and daily life (where evidence exists involving other people for the same place and time, and so inserting Shakespeare into it is rational).
Awesome palate cleanser.
What I loved most was how frequently Bryson reminds the reader that there is no evidence for certain conjectures -- but when there IS evidence, he presents it clearly. He gives balanced pros and cons to theories that could go either way, and he addresses the history of faulty and fraudulent Shakespearean scholarship. As for the authorship debate, he refutes the Baconian and Oxfordian arguments with a hilarious, "We have no proof Shakespeare owned any pants or shoes, either."
Also, he states outright that Shakespeare can be read as a gay poet and dramatist. No dithering. He also discusses the sonnets and the arguments concerning their assumed recipients at length, and reminds readers that James I used to make out with handsome young men in the midst of performing court business.
There were also interesting interviews with archivists that put the state and difficultly of the scholarship itself into context. My inner librarian was very happy about that.
The parts of the book concerning the history of the competing theatres didn't work for me at all, however. It was brief, confusing, and seemed possibly to conflate entirely different buildings, although I actually didn't stop to track down the discrepancies. The Ackroyd book was much clearer on what happened with which property under whose ownership (or tenancy) when, and Ackroyd's various histories of London and Britain lead me to trust his research in this and other questions of setting and daily life (where evidence exists involving other people for the same place and time, and so inserting Shakespeare into it is rational).
Awesome palate cleanser.
Bill Bryson is always a fun author to read, and here he shines as he conveys the (very small) amount of information that we know about Shakespeare's life. This book is a short, fast read primarily because there is not much of a historical record regarding Shakespeare. We have his plays (most of them) and a handful of bare facts gleaned from legal records, a few notes from diaries, but that's pretty much it.
However, Bryson manages to take this scant collection of facts and build an engaging biography. His keen appreciation for irony and the ridiculous are a perfect match for the few facts we know about Shakespeare's life and the myriad of myths and theories that have ballooned around it. A highly recommended read for anyone interested in history or who wants a good clear lead on what we know about Shakespeare, and what others just guess.
However, Bryson manages to take this scant collection of facts and build an engaging biography. His keen appreciation for irony and the ridiculous are a perfect match for the few facts we know about Shakespeare's life and the myriad of myths and theories that have ballooned around it. A highly recommended read for anyone interested in history or who wants a good clear lead on what we know about Shakespeare, and what others just guess.