Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.07 AVERAGE
4.07 AVERAGE
Spoilers: Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare.
What really makes Contested Will the fairest look at the so-called "authorship controversy" is that Shapiro so thoroughly examines the reasons that the anti-Stratfordians came to believe that William Shakespeare did not, in fact, write his own plays and poems. Shapiro very clearly knows what he's talking about, and he thoroughly documents the compelling reasons that all mainstream scholarship is 'Stratfordian.'
What really makes Contested Will interesting is that, rather than dismissing each of the Baconian and Oxfordian arguments point by point or ridiculing them, he looks into the cultural, literary, and personal forces that led so many people to dismiss the man from Stratford as the author of his plays. He writes thoughtfully and with sympathy, in a manner that many mainstream scholars simply haven't bothered. There's a lot to be learned, not just about the authorship controversy, but the history of Shakespeare studies in this book.
If I had one complaint, it would be that the book sags a bit in the middle from too heavy a focus on famous anti-Stratfordians, particularly Freud. Freud has an important place in his discussion, but it seemed to go a little long. Nevertheless, it's still a very worthy read.
What really makes Contested Will the fairest look at the so-called "authorship controversy" is that Shapiro so thoroughly examines the reasons that the anti-Stratfordians came to believe that William Shakespeare did not, in fact, write his own plays and poems. Shapiro very clearly knows what he's talking about, and he thoroughly documents the compelling reasons that all mainstream scholarship is 'Stratfordian.'
What really makes Contested Will interesting is that, rather than dismissing each of the Baconian and Oxfordian arguments point by point or ridiculing them, he looks into the cultural, literary, and personal forces that led so many people to dismiss the man from Stratford as the author of his plays. He writes thoughtfully and with sympathy, in a manner that many mainstream scholars simply haven't bothered. There's a lot to be learned, not just about the authorship controversy, but the history of Shakespeare studies in this book.
If I had one complaint, it would be that the book sags a bit in the middle from too heavy a focus on famous anti-Stratfordians, particularly Freud. Freud has an important place in his discussion, but it seemed to go a little long. Nevertheless, it's still a very worthy read.
Too academic and, although I accept his premise that the plays of Shakespeare were written by Shakespeare (sometimes in colaboration) it wasn't well argued.
The problem is that there isn't much surviving evidence of Shakespeare from the time which leaves a vacuum to be filled by conspiracy theories and, unfortunately, not much to write about in a book like this.
The problem is that there isn't much surviving evidence of Shakespeare from the time which leaves a vacuum to be filled by conspiracy theories and, unfortunately, not much to write about in a book like this.
SHAKESPEARE CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS.
The 2 stars given here is definitely more a reflection on my tastes than the quality of the work. I read a Bill Bryson book about Shakespeare that I enjoyed and decided to pursue the subject a little further. This book is obviously a step up in complexity and addresses the authorship question, which I mostly don't care about but now I know many great figures out of history were weirdly fixated on. About 200 pages in I was more interested by the author's "Case for Shakespeare" than the preceding focus on various persons who have convinced themselves and others that Shakespeare didn't write his own plays.
Well researched & presented but not for everyone; had I a passion for Shakespeare this could just had easily have been 5 stars.
The 2 stars given here is definitely more a reflection on my tastes than the quality of the work. I read a Bill Bryson book about Shakespeare that I enjoyed and decided to pursue the subject a little further. This book is obviously a step up in complexity and addresses the authorship question, which I mostly don't care about but now I know many great figures out of history were weirdly fixated on. About 200 pages in I was more interested by the author's "Case for Shakespeare" than the preceding focus on various persons who have convinced themselves and others that Shakespeare didn't write his own plays.
Well researched & presented but not for everyone; had I a passion for Shakespeare this could just had easily have been 5 stars.
Really enjoyed this. I spent the whole time reading it making fun of the Baconians and Oxfordians who apparently have never heard of "imagination" and was glad that there was a chapter listing contemporary references to the man himself and explaining how publishing and theater worked in Shakespeare's time.
Bit disappointing after loving Shapiro's other books in Shakespeare. Think I wanted more about the Elizabethan period and less about the Victorians who dreamed up the authorship conspiracy.
challenging
informative
medium-paced
informative
slow-paced
4.5/5
Everyone who knows me know that I'm a huge Shakespeare nerd. Everyone who knows me also knows that I try to get my hands on anything related to Shakespeare's life and the authorship question. It's something that has fascinated me for YEARS, and Shapiro's book is great for people somewhat familiar to the subject who wish to learn more.
P.S. My new Roman Empire is the fact that nobody decided to interview people who knew Shakespeare personally in their lifetimes.
Everyone who knows me know that I'm a huge Shakespeare nerd. Everyone who knows me also knows that I try to get my hands on anything related to Shakespeare's life and the authorship question. It's something that has fascinated me for YEARS, and Shapiro's book is great for people somewhat familiar to the subject who wish to learn more.
P.S. My new Roman Empire is the fact that nobody decided to interview people who knew Shakespeare personally in their lifetimes.