Scan barcode
berlinbibliophile's review against another edition
4.0
I've wanted to reread this book for the longest time, and I was absolutely right to do so. This is, of course, not an academic work, but it explains the different positions of the authorship question well, and Shapiro never descends to name calling, even if some things he describes are clearly ridiculous, like the Prince Tudor theory. I also really appreciate that he goes over the case for Shakespeare rather than just the cases against the other theories. I am more convinced of my Stratfordian beliefs than ever.
thearcticcircle's review against another edition
challenging
funny
informative
reflective
slow-paced
5.0
orlion's review against another edition
4.0
Despite what the title may have you believe, this book is not about weighing the merits of various authorship hypothesis with regards to Shakespearean literature. James Shapiro informs the reader near the beginning that Shakespeare was written by Shakespeare. This book is instead a history of the Shakespearean Authorship Controversy, why and how it developed, the forms it has taken, and why "the establishment" kinda rolls their eyes about it.
The book itself is split into four parts.
In the first part, we get some background history on the development of Shakespearean studies from the eighteenth down to the nineteenth century, what assumptions were made about the Bard, and the desperate struggle to find any documentation that would elucidate the biography of what many considered the greatest English writer to have ever lived. The dearth of such information, and what information being available depicting a "worldly" Shakespeare, led researchers to search William's work for clues into his life. This assumption, that the plays and poetry of Shakespeare contain autobiographical information, is what mostly drives the Authorship Controversy, according to Shapiro.
The second and third parts take a look at the development, rise, and fall of two of the most famous "candidates" for writing Shakespeare: Francis Bacon and Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. These are representative of two main views on the author of Shakespeare: that he hid meaning in ciphers in his plays (Bacon) or that Shakespeare works are veiled satire attacking the establishment and meant to overthrow the tyranny of democracy (Oxford). In both cases, speculative evidence in support of these cases were sought in how closely events in the plays and Sonnets corresponded with the lives of the supposed "true" authors.
In the fourth part, Shapiro makes his case for the Stratfordian authorship. This, like the rest of the book, is well structured and interesting, but seems to be a bit short. It is convincing, but I want more!
Shapiro's book pulls the curtain from the Authorship Question and shows how unfounded assumptions, romanticism, and lack of imagination has led and continues to lead many to false conclusions on the authorship of the works of Shakespeare. He also demonstrates that even in smelly old academia, there is a dynamic progress in place as new research from different fields helps elucidate what culture was like in England during the time of Shakespeare and in particular the practices of the playwrights.
The book itself is split into four parts.
In the first part, we get some background history on the development of Shakespearean studies from the eighteenth down to the nineteenth century, what assumptions were made about the Bard, and the desperate struggle to find any documentation that would elucidate the biography of what many considered the greatest English writer to have ever lived. The dearth of such information, and what information being available depicting a "worldly" Shakespeare, led researchers to search William's work for clues into his life. This assumption, that the plays and poetry of Shakespeare contain autobiographical information, is what mostly drives the Authorship Controversy, according to Shapiro.
The second and third parts take a look at the development, rise, and fall of two of the most famous "candidates" for writing Shakespeare: Francis Bacon and Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. These are representative of two main views on the author of Shakespeare: that he hid meaning in ciphers in his plays (Bacon) or that Shakespeare works are veiled satire attacking the establishment and meant to overthrow the tyranny of democracy (Oxford). In both cases, speculative evidence in support of these cases were sought in how closely events in the plays and Sonnets corresponded with the lives of the supposed "true" authors.
In the fourth part, Shapiro makes his case for the Stratfordian authorship. This, like the rest of the book, is well structured and interesting, but seems to be a bit short. It is convincing, but I want more!
Shapiro's book pulls the curtain from the Authorship Question and shows how unfounded assumptions, romanticism, and lack of imagination has led and continues to lead many to false conclusions on the authorship of the works of Shakespeare. He also demonstrates that even in smelly old academia, there is a dynamic progress in place as new research from different fields helps elucidate what culture was like in England during the time of Shakespeare and in particular the practices of the playwrights.
makraemer's review against another edition
4.0
Very readable look into the history of the controversy/conspiracy surrounding the authorship of Shakespeare's plays. The author is definitely in the Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare camp and makes a strong case against the other contenders and the house of cards the conspiracies are built upon. Highly recommended for those of you who care and are interested in this stuff. I certainly do.
gillothen's review against another edition
4.0
Enjoyable and interesting, looking at the attitudes which have led people to assume Shakespeare couldn't have been Shakespeare. I'm firmly of the Stratford camp, but found some interesting material here. One doubt - Shapiro referred to the Victorian interest in codes and more or less stated that E A Poe was a contemporary of Samuel Morse and of late Victorian codebreakers. He was dead before 1850, which suggests Shapiro's grasp of later chronology is either shaky or overly flexible. Like Greenblatt he has been known to adapt evidence to suit his ends, so it does leave a little question open about other facts where one has to take him on trust.
danahuff's review against another edition
5.0
Read my review of Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?.
olaprade100's review against another edition
4.0
SO well researched and not too pushy. Shapiro does a really great job of giving you all evidence in separate sections of the book and then letting you take from it what you want. In order to put together an essay on why it is Shakespeare, you have to take from the whole book for evidence. You want to know more about the Shakespeare Authorship Controversy? This is a great, reader friendly, book for you.
marisbest2's review against another edition
4.0
A topic I knew very little about, and is interesting. The author is somewhat dismissive of the conspiracy theories about the authorship question in a way that somewhat distracts. He also does to his subjects the same thing they do to Shakespeare, namely read their biography into their work, and their work into their biography. But the parts about the meaning of authorship and especially the comparisons to Biblical and Homeric authorship questions are quite good.
Overall a good layman's introduction to a very academic topic
Overall a good layman's introduction to a very academic topic
deborahwithanoh's review against another edition
A really interesting read that makes its case well and touches on a variety of interesting stuff besides, such as the advent of autobiography and what Shakespeare meant to people like Sigmund Freud and Mark Twain. It was gratifying to me to read as a long-time lover of Shakespeare's works and a believer in the imaginative (and collaborative!) power of theatre, of writing, and of storytelling.