Scan barcode
alexandrapierce's review against another edition
3.0
I read this because it was the book picked by Mondy for March's Writer and the Critic podcast, on which I was the guest (which is full of spoilers for the book). It's kinda my sort of book... and kinda really not.
I am a Shakespeare Fan. I love me some Bard. Not the comedies, though; I love the tragedies and the histories. Oh, and Much Ado, but that's a whole 'nother story (one involving Kenneth and Emma and Ben Elton and Michael Keaton and Keanu...). So, a book that alternates chapters about Will Shakespeare Greenberg, aspiring Masters student at UCal, with the late-teen years of William Shakespeare in Stratford-upon-Avon, is in theory a very appealing one to me. And Winfield clearly knows (or got to know) his Shakespeare: there are allusions, and direct quotes, in I think every single chapter - and they all seemed effortless, too. I enjoyed the development of sixteenth-century Stratford. I'm not entirely convinced by man-whore Shakespeare, but I see the point from a narrative point of view, and it's not a completely ridiculous suggestion. Overall it was a reasonably interesting portrayal of his early adulthood.
On the other hand, there was Will Greenberg. A book published in 2008 choosing the mid-1980s as its setting is kinda weird, although I understand why: Winfield was drawing (perhaps tenuous) connections between the persecution of Catholics by Elizabeth with the crackdown on drugs by the Reagan administration. The portrayal of a Masters student of literature was hugely stereotypical, sadly - although again I see the point from a narrative point of view, especially in terms of the drug use. It doesn't help the view of Arts students in general though, and the idea that marvellous ideas come in a flash of lightning or drug overdose is just annoying and unhelpful. It may be that I am a prude, but I got bored by the descriptions of drug use and the explicit sexual content; it got in the way of telling the story.
So... not really my thing, actually. Certainly well written, in the early modern bits in particular; as a former history/lit student myself I found the brief discussion of literary theory, especially the bagging of New Historicism, pretty funny (I am a big fan of Stephen Greenblatt, one of the original proponents). But the characters weren't that engaging and the story wasn't that compelling.
I am a Shakespeare Fan. I love me some Bard. Not the comedies, though; I love the tragedies and the histories. Oh, and Much Ado, but that's a whole 'nother story (one involving Kenneth and Emma and Ben Elton and Michael Keaton and Keanu...). So, a book that alternates chapters about Will Shakespeare Greenberg, aspiring Masters student at UCal, with the late-teen years of William Shakespeare in Stratford-upon-Avon, is in theory a very appealing one to me. And Winfield clearly knows (or got to know) his Shakespeare: there are allusions, and direct quotes, in I think every single chapter - and they all seemed effortless, too. I enjoyed the development of sixteenth-century Stratford. I'm not entirely convinced by man-whore Shakespeare, but I see the point from a narrative point of view, and it's not a completely ridiculous suggestion. Overall it was a reasonably interesting portrayal of his early adulthood.
On the other hand, there was Will Greenberg. A book published in 2008 choosing the mid-1980s as its setting is kinda weird, although I understand why: Winfield was drawing (perhaps tenuous) connections between the persecution of Catholics by Elizabeth with the crackdown on drugs by the Reagan administration. The portrayal of a Masters student of literature was hugely stereotypical, sadly - although again I see the point from a narrative point of view, especially in terms of the drug use. It doesn't help the view of Arts students in general though, and the idea that marvellous ideas come in a flash of lightning or drug overdose is just annoying and unhelpful. It may be that I am a prude, but I got bored by the descriptions of drug use and the explicit sexual content; it got in the way of telling the story.
So... not really my thing, actually. Certainly well written, in the early modern bits in particular; as a former history/lit student myself I found the brief discussion of literary theory, especially the bagging of New Historicism, pretty funny (I am a big fan of Stephen Greenblatt, one of the original proponents). But the characters weren't that engaging and the story wasn't that compelling.
kryptowright1984's review against another edition
4.0
It's fitting that I picked up this novel after finishing Hamlet in Purgatory. Both are concerned with Shakespeare's religious affiliations, but other than that, could not be more different. It helped, though, to have my memory jogged by Greenblatt's analysis of Catholicism in medieval and Elizabethan England. It prepared me for the rip-roaring ride between the two Will Shakespeares that author Jess Winfield creates here: the playwright and Willie Shakespeare Greenberg, a man who understands little about Shakespeare that he doesn't receive under the influence of a Rubik's Cube or psychedelic mushrooms.
For Winfield is telling two stories here: a surmise of what may have happened to make Shakespeare one of the greatest writers who ever lived, and the events surrounding a grad student in 1980s, his struggle to finish (or just plain start) his thesis, and the drug deal he undertakes for some extra cash. Seems like a weird combination, but the strongest points of these stories come when they intertwine.
Because Winfield is doing more than creating a story about drugs and spiritual enlightenment--he's actually comparing the two, as both young men experience ecstasy that rockets them into the past and the future, and see what the oppressive regimes of the 1580s and the 1980s are doing to those around them. This turns out to be Winfield's most original and strongest point: freedom to choose one's own limits and what one derives ecstasy from. Of course, most of Willie's choices end up with him in jail or experiencing guilt from one of many ill-advised sexual encounters. But it's a coming of age story for both the men (the first Shakespeare being the moody yet egotistical upstart crow he's usually fictionalized as), and Winfield does a good job creating tense yet fun environments for the Wills to grow up in.
I have two qualms with the book. One, its reaches into academia don't seem all that academic. Even with the supposedly brilliant revision by the story's end, Willie's thesis seems to have too broad a subject matter to make any honest, clear statements about Shakespeare's work. And we are supposed to think it has. However, that part of the story is set in the '80s, so Shakespearean scholarship might not have been so concerned yet with the marrying of the Bard's lost personal life to his work. Who knows?
Second: the female characters in My Name Is Will aren't all that compelling, with a few exceptions (all existing in William Shakespeare's world of the 1580s). They mostly torture Willie sexually, yet are drawn to him because he's supposedly more sensitive than most. I'm fine with women seeing an inner light in a character, but most of Willie's actions don't justify this. They must be looking pretty hard. Which I could accept, but we never understand why they're looking so hard in the first place.
Despite these issues, the rest of the story is told at a fun pace, and has enough provocative material to keep the audience hooked, so I didn't mind these glitches as much. Definitely a good debut novel; I would read his work again.
For Winfield is telling two stories here: a surmise of what may have happened to make Shakespeare one of the greatest writers who ever lived, and the events surrounding a grad student in 1980s, his struggle to finish (or just plain start) his thesis, and the drug deal he undertakes for some extra cash. Seems like a weird combination, but the strongest points of these stories come when they intertwine.
Because Winfield is doing more than creating a story about drugs and spiritual enlightenment--he's actually comparing the two, as both young men experience ecstasy that rockets them into the past and the future, and see what the oppressive regimes of the 1580s and the 1980s are doing to those around them. This turns out to be Winfield's most original and strongest point: freedom to choose one's own limits and what one derives ecstasy from. Of course, most of Willie's choices end up with him in jail or experiencing guilt from one of many ill-advised sexual encounters. But it's a coming of age story for both the men (the first Shakespeare being the moody yet egotistical upstart crow he's usually fictionalized as), and Winfield does a good job creating tense yet fun environments for the Wills to grow up in.
I have two qualms with the book. One, its reaches into academia don't seem all that academic. Even with the supposedly brilliant revision by the story's end, Willie's thesis seems to have too broad a subject matter to make any honest, clear statements about Shakespeare's work. And we are supposed to think it has. However, that part of the story is set in the '80s, so Shakespearean scholarship might not have been so concerned yet with the marrying of the Bard's lost personal life to his work. Who knows?
Second: the female characters in My Name Is Will aren't all that compelling, with a few exceptions (all existing in William Shakespeare's world of the 1580s). They mostly torture Willie sexually, yet are drawn to him because he's supposedly more sensitive than most. I'm fine with women seeing an inner light in a character, but most of Willie's actions don't justify this. They must be looking pretty hard. Which I could accept, but we never understand why they're looking so hard in the first place.
Despite these issues, the rest of the story is told at a fun pace, and has enough provocative material to keep the audience hooked, so I didn't mind these glitches as much. Definitely a good debut novel; I would read his work again.
terriml50's review against another edition
Fun! Chapters alternate between Willie Shakespeare Greenburg, druggie graduate student in 1980's California, and the William Shakespeare, when he is 18, sleeping around (quite a bit), and is just starting to think about writing and acting. Clever juxtaposition between the two Williams and their lives. The Greenburg chapters were fun, if a bit frustrating when he keeps screwing things up (due to laziness and drugs, and sleeping around). The Shakespeare chapters are excellent historical fiction. While this is not the best book with Shakespeare in it ever, it certainly is worth reading.
figaro's review against another edition
4.0
The subtitle of this book is a very accurate portrayal: this book is about sex, drugs, and Shakespeare. The sex and drugs are sometimes rather descriptive, if that's not your thing, and the Shakespeare is no-holds-barred explicit.
Clever, funny, and rich with Shakespearean goodness--bawdy puns and wordplay, quotes from the Bard, and a big heart.
Clever, funny, and rich with Shakespearean goodness--bawdy puns and wordplay, quotes from the Bard, and a big heart.
nathanturczan's review against another edition
1.0
I read this book once I got accepted to / decided to attend UCSC. I loved UCSC. I didn't much like this book.
ktheobald_'s review against another edition
3.0
Highly entertaining and I learned a lot about Shakespeare's life. It is written in a creative format, though some parts seemed like the author was reaching to connect things. Overall, I enjoyed it.
billnienaber's review against another edition
4.0
This entertaining little adventure was written by a founding member of the Reduced Shakespeare Company, creators of the dementedly brilliant The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, Abridged, which I first experienced in a performance by one of my sons and two of his friends sometime during the end of the last century (late 90s). This new novel tells the parallel stories of William Shakespeare Greenburg (Willie), and [b:William Shakespeare|18135|Romeo and Juliet|William Shakespeare|http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51XTDJ3P4XL._SL75_.jpg|3349450] himself. Willie, in the 1980s, is trying to finish, or actually begin, his thesis on Shakespeare's supposed closet Catholicism, while simultaneously juggling love affairs with at least 3 young ladies, and getting high an awful lot. In the parallel 16th century plot, an 19-year-old Shakespeare is toying with the idea of writing or performing, while also falling in love with several young women. The contemporary story is chock full of stuff you might recall from the 80s, including fine Lebanese hash, magic mushrooms, and Ronnie Reagan's war on drugs, and both stories are overflowing with sex. The real fun for me was in the uncanny parallels between the lives of these two young rascals. This is a fairly light and quick read, and I would certainly recommend it.
premat's review against another edition
3.0
meh.
wanted this to be fabulous. instead it was just moderately enjoyable, so i powered through & moved on.
wanted this to be fabulous. instead it was just moderately enjoyable, so i powered through & moved on.
corybanter's review against another edition
4.0
I saw this book on a "shelfie" posted on Facebook by Austin Tichenor, who is currently a member of the Reduced Shakespeare Company, of which author Jess Winfield was a founding member. After reading a brief synopsis of the book, I thought it sounded like something fun. As a lifelong Shakespeare fan, I did find the plot pretty interesting, and the characters engaging. To my way of thinking, the plot line involving young William Shakespeare in the 16th century was a bit more interesting than the plotline involving grad student Willie Shakespeare Greenberg in the 1980s. Still, I enjoyed the book overall. Well worth reading.