Take a photo of a barcode or cover
lattelibrarian's review against another edition
4.0
This was probably one of the best nonfiction books I've read. In fact, I read her chapter on Measure for Measure a couple years back before I even got my hands on this book. I recently graduated from college, and right now I'm currently in a gap year before I go get my masters. I decided that this year, I was only going to read fun books that were already on my shelves, because next year, I'd be thrown back into a world of syllabi and required reading. Last year, I wrote two major theses on a variety of books, so once I was done with those, I think it was safe to say that I didn't want to read anything non-fiction for a long, long time.
And then I saw this book. I mean, look at that title: Women of Will? Sign me up. I figured, well, it looks good, and I like feminism, women, and Shakespeare, so I may as well give it a whirl. I'm glad I did.
Reading this book makes you feel like you're getting a cup of coffee with Packer. While she does talk a lot about Shakespeare and her thoughts on his female characters, she also offers positionality: she founded Shakespeare and Company, she's directed and acted many of his plays, and she works closely with a man named Nigel, who frequently plays the foil to her female roles. While these anecdotes can be a little distracting, I find that they are necessary when reading her analysis.
However, I do feel the need to pause and say that in terms of literary analysis like this, where it's discussing an author's work more frequently than the author's life, it's important to remember that the thesis or main points of the analysis are literally just headcanons. For those unfamiliar with this term, a headcanon is an idea or belief about a character that is not directly supported by the text. And so, with literary analyses like this one, it's safe to say that Packer is simply offering evidence for her Shakespeare headcanons--so, that being said, I still find that her book is still worth reading even if you don't agree with what she's saying. After all, Shakespeare only gives us part of the story: it's up to the actors and readers to interpret it.
Back to the book. Another one of my favorite things about this book is how explanatory Packer is. There's no need to worry if you haven't read everything in Shakespeare's canon, or don't know all the characters. Of course, my favorite parts were when Packer discussed the plays that I already knew, but she made it easy to understand the plays that I didn't. That way, her analysis wasn't lost on me.
Ultimately, the only reason that this book gets a 4.5 star rating is because Packer hardly mentions Lavinia from Titus and Andronicus. Granted, Titus is a difficult play, filled to the brim with horrors, and therefore probably one of the hardest plays to understand, but I still felt that Lavinia should have earned at least a page or two. There's a lot going on with her and her relationship to love, sexuality, and daughterhood. But, the fact still remains that Packer's book is insightful and thought-provoking.
Get the full review here!
And then I saw this book. I mean, look at that title: Women of Will? Sign me up. I figured, well, it looks good, and I like feminism, women, and Shakespeare, so I may as well give it a whirl. I'm glad I did.
Reading this book makes you feel like you're getting a cup of coffee with Packer. While she does talk a lot about Shakespeare and her thoughts on his female characters, she also offers positionality: she founded Shakespeare and Company, she's directed and acted many of his plays, and she works closely with a man named Nigel, who frequently plays the foil to her female roles. While these anecdotes can be a little distracting, I find that they are necessary when reading her analysis.
However, I do feel the need to pause and say that in terms of literary analysis like this, where it's discussing an author's work more frequently than the author's life, it's important to remember that the thesis or main points of the analysis are literally just headcanons. For those unfamiliar with this term, a headcanon is an idea or belief about a character that is not directly supported by the text. And so, with literary analyses like this one, it's safe to say that Packer is simply offering evidence for her Shakespeare headcanons--so, that being said, I still find that her book is still worth reading even if you don't agree with what she's saying. After all, Shakespeare only gives us part of the story: it's up to the actors and readers to interpret it.
Back to the book. Another one of my favorite things about this book is how explanatory Packer is. There's no need to worry if you haven't read everything in Shakespeare's canon, or don't know all the characters. Of course, my favorite parts were when Packer discussed the plays that I already knew, but she made it easy to understand the plays that I didn't. That way, her analysis wasn't lost on me.
Ultimately, the only reason that this book gets a 4.5 star rating is because Packer hardly mentions Lavinia from Titus and Andronicus. Granted, Titus is a difficult play, filled to the brim with horrors, and therefore probably one of the hardest plays to understand, but I still felt that Lavinia should have earned at least a page or two. There's a lot going on with her and her relationship to love, sexuality, and daughterhood. But, the fact still remains that Packer's book is insightful and thought-provoking.
Get the full review here!
leesmyth's review against another edition
4.0
I chafed at the extensive (and usually unlabeled) speculation about what Shakespeare must have thought and experienced, and what must have been happening in his life for him to have written the plays he did. More generally, the book is replete with assertions about various historical periods, for which I'd love to see specific supporting references or citations.
And I vigorously disagree with a good deal of the discussion of the plays themselves - even given the author's avowedly narrow focus, I can't help thinking she's often asking the wrong questions and making the wrong assumptions.
That said, I think her perspective is a valuable one. She's coming at Shakespeare from her lived experience as a long-time director and actor. She's been wrestling with these texts and how to bring them alive to audiences, in community with other actors, for decades. Art and passion are surely at the center of her universe and she finds them transformative.
I most enjoyed the fourth section ("Chaos Is Come Again: The Lion Eats the Wolf") and the Epilogue, as well as the discussions of Much Ado About Nothing, Pericles, and The Winter's Tale.
And I vigorously disagree with a good deal of the discussion of the plays themselves - even given the author's avowedly narrow focus, I can't help thinking she's often asking the wrong questions and making the wrong assumptions.
That said, I think her perspective is a valuable one. She's coming at Shakespeare from her lived experience as a long-time director and actor. She's been wrestling with these texts and how to bring them alive to audiences, in community with other actors, for decades. Art and passion are surely at the center of her universe and she finds them transformative.
I most enjoyed the fourth section ("Chaos Is Come Again: The Lion Eats the Wolf") and the Epilogue, as well as the discussions of Much Ado About Nothing, Pericles, and The Winter's Tale.
cjdawn236's review against another edition
4.0
I loved this look at the female characters in Shakespeare. Tina Packer does an excellent job looking at Shakespeare's growth as a writer through his portrayal of women on stage. I also loved that Packer herself has experience reading, acting and directing Shakespeare; it was interesting to get that additional perspective of some of these characters.
asae324's review against another edition
5.0
Listening to Women of Will feels like having many cups of coffee, walks along the garden, and the occasional pint with a favorite aunt or a beloved teacher and her male companion, both of whom, happen to also be brilliant actors and courageous souls. There are chapters worthy of standing room only at Oxford or The Globe and chapters where the thread gets a little lost and the experience feels a bit scattered and you wonder if you'd both rather be somewhere else. Those might be poor metaphors for getting at the strengths and weaknesses of this work, however, my point is that if you love Shakespeare and you love the kind of embodied/examined experience that are core to acting and the work of Shakespeare & Co then event in the moments where this work does not quite work you are in marvelous company and glad to be there. Highly recommended, particularly in audio form.
alishalester's review against another edition
challenging
funny
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.5
bridgetanderson's review against another edition
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
amalia1985's review against another edition
1.0
This book cannot even justify the one-star rating. I read it as fast as I could like a personal mental exercise. I wanted to test my irritation limits, how much nonsence I could handle before I said ''ok, that's enough.'' I dont know how I managed to finish it, but I did. Now, I want to forget everything about it.
Consider yourselves warned...A rant of epic proportions is about to begin...
When I saw the title, I thought ''Oh, this is going to be great!''. When I saw the imposing Ellen Terry front cover, with the goddess of Theatre in Lady Macbeth's famous beetlewing dress, I said ''come to me, you beautiful book, you.'' I dived right into Shakespeare's world, trying to learn more about the development of female roles over the course of his work. Sadly, what I found was a huge pile of problems and a stinking ego.
The first blow came early, when the writer referred to ''The Taming of the Shrew''. In my opinion, she has completely misunderstood the meaning of the ending. I believe that Kate decides to answer in irony, hidden in docile words, in order to show to Petruchio that he will never win completely. In my mind, she wants him to understand that he can never be certain whether she is sincerely tamed or not. And there lies the beauty of the play. I think Shakespeare has concluded it in such a way so that the readers can view it openly and interpret either way. Many acclaimed critics have stated this as a possibility, but Packer never states a doubt. The expression in my opinion is totally absent. She promotes her own prejudiced views as being ''canon'', in a pseudo-revolutionary, highly pretentious manner.Her dogmatic tone bothered me deeply and made me doubtful as to what was coming next.
And next, she took the theme of male friendship, which is so important to Shakespeare's plays (a concept that the Bard borrowed from Ancient Greece) and drew a comparison to the Paul Newman and Robert Redford films(!) I mean...SERIOUSLY? Show some respect...Her way to refer to Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine was to mention the actors who portrayed them in the film adaptation of The Lion in Winter, the famous play by James Goldman. As if there is no chance in the world that the readers will recognise these legendary historical figures, who shaped a large part of the European History, unless they have watched a film. We're talking about the parents of Richard the Lionheart, call me an idealist but I'd like to entertain myself by thinking that the readers who are interested in essays about Shakespearean characters do know a thing or two about History. History, people, not Hollywood...
The writer is so opinionated (in a negative way, of course), so boisterous that it becomes tedious, irritating, infuriating. She seems to have convinced herself that she knows what went on in Shakespeare's mind as he was writing the plays (!) She is so certain her view is correct because ''I have read thousands of books on Shakespeare, I have played in and directed all Shakespeare's plays, I founded Shakespeare & Company in Massachusetts...'' There are so many ''I''s and ''Me''s that I had the feeling I was reading about her, not about Shakespeare. Well, you're not Laurence Olivier, you know. Not even he had ever the nerve to claim that he was aware of Shakespeare's thought. I mean, who are you? The Doctor Who of the Mind? For instance, she says she liked to think that Joan of Arc was the first woman he wrote about, because...no reason. Just like that!
This has been a rant, it has been a long rant, but I had the need to vent after witnessing Shakespeare being abused in the hands of the writer. I was ready to toss it aside after 50 pages, but I didn't. I was hooked by her -fascinatingly- poor writing and lack of objectivity. I considered it a hunt in order to spot the following outrageous claims.And I stayed up all night to finish it. Well, it was entertaining, I can tell you that. After all, I managed to find the worst book about Shakespeare after 14 years of devouring everything that has to do with the Bard's life and work. And I thought that ''Shakespeare In Love was an ugly, poorly-written (not to mention acted, since she adores Hollywood so much) nightmare...This book deserves no stars, it deserves minus stars, actually. If only I had a raven to cry ''Hold, hold!'' when I started reading it...
Consider yourselves warned...A rant of epic proportions is about to begin...
When I saw the title, I thought ''Oh, this is going to be great!''. When I saw the imposing Ellen Terry front cover, with the goddess of Theatre in Lady Macbeth's famous beetlewing dress, I said ''come to me, you beautiful book, you.'' I dived right into Shakespeare's world, trying to learn more about the development of female roles over the course of his work. Sadly, what I found was a huge pile of problems and a stinking ego.
The first blow came early, when the writer referred to ''The Taming of the Shrew''. In my opinion, she has completely misunderstood the meaning of the ending. I believe that Kate decides to answer in irony, hidden in docile words, in order to show to Petruchio that he will never win completely. In my mind, she wants him to understand that he can never be certain whether she is sincerely tamed or not. And there lies the beauty of the play. I think Shakespeare has concluded it in such a way so that the readers can view it openly and interpret either way. Many acclaimed critics have stated this as a possibility, but Packer never states a doubt. The expression in my opinion is totally absent. She promotes her own prejudiced views as being ''canon'', in a pseudo-revolutionary, highly pretentious manner.Her dogmatic tone bothered me deeply and made me doubtful as to what was coming next.
And next, she took the theme of male friendship, which is so important to Shakespeare's plays (a concept that the Bard borrowed from Ancient Greece) and drew a comparison to the Paul Newman and Robert Redford films(!) I mean...SERIOUSLY? Show some respect...Her way to refer to Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine was to mention the actors who portrayed them in the film adaptation of The Lion in Winter, the famous play by James Goldman. As if there is no chance in the world that the readers will recognise these legendary historical figures, who shaped a large part of the European History, unless they have watched a film. We're talking about the parents of Richard the Lionheart, call me an idealist but I'd like to entertain myself by thinking that the readers who are interested in essays about Shakespearean characters do know a thing or two about History. History, people, not Hollywood...
The writer is so opinionated (in a negative way, of course), so boisterous that it becomes tedious, irritating, infuriating. She seems to have convinced herself that she knows what went on in Shakespeare's mind as he was writing the plays (!) She is so certain her view is correct because ''I have read thousands of books on Shakespeare, I have played in and directed all Shakespeare's plays, I founded Shakespeare & Company in Massachusetts...'' There are so many ''I''s and ''Me''s that I had the feeling I was reading about her, not about Shakespeare. Well, you're not Laurence Olivier, you know. Not even he had ever the nerve to claim that he was aware of Shakespeare's thought. I mean, who are you? The Doctor Who of the Mind? For instance, she says she liked to think that Joan of Arc was the first woman he wrote about, because...no reason. Just like that!
This has been a rant, it has been a long rant, but I had the need to vent after witnessing Shakespeare being abused in the hands of the writer. I was ready to toss it aside after 50 pages, but I didn't. I was hooked by her -fascinatingly- poor writing and lack of objectivity. I considered it a hunt in order to spot the following outrageous claims.And I stayed up all night to finish it. Well, it was entertaining, I can tell you that. After all, I managed to find the worst book about Shakespeare after 14 years of devouring everything that has to do with the Bard's life and work. And I thought that ''Shakespeare In Love was an ugly, poorly-written (not to mention acted, since she adores Hollywood so much) nightmare...This book deserves no stars, it deserves minus stars, actually. If only I had a raven to cry ''Hold, hold!'' when I started reading it...