Scan barcode
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.
lgiegerich's review against another edition
3.0
while maybe not as engrossing a read as 1599, i think i have a much better grounding in the various authorship theories regarding shakespeare's works. and Shapiro makes a good argument for Shakespeare, which i admit i find more compelling than the Baconian and Oxfordian conspiracy theories.
jasonfurman's review against another edition
5.0
An outstanding book. A joy to read from beginning to end, learned an enormous amount, all processed through the lens of the history of Shakespeare authorship controversies. In particular, the book asks why so many people have come to believe that William Shakespeare of Stratford did not write the plays attributed to him but that someone else, like Francis Bacon or Edward de Vere of Oxford, did. This view was held by people from Nathaniel Hawthorne to Mark Twain to Sigmund Freud to several Supreme Court justices today and even the New York Times has written agnostically on the subject of who wrote Shakespeare.
Shapiro traces the history of Shakespeare studies from his death through the early 19th Century, documenting the twists and turns of how little fragments of evidence about Shakespeare's life emerged, dotted with several episodes of forgery, and culminating in a number of prominent Shakespeare scholars starting in the 1700s who viewed his works through the prism of psychology, autobiography, and other similar perspectives.
Shapiro argues that it was these well meaning attempts to fill in the gaps with other disciplines that also opened up the belief that the same person who was a moneylender and a grain merchant could not have written about courts and kings and the other aspects of Shakespeare. The first set of theories focused on Bacon, and comical ideas about elaborate ciphers in Shakespeare's work. This was followed by the view that Edward de Vere wrote Shakespeare's works, a theory undeterred by de Vere's death in 1604, a decade before the final Shakespeare play.
Shapiro explains why these theories appealed to so many people (e.g., Twain was writing his autobiography, believed that all of his works were written directly from his own experience, and could not imagine someone else doing otherwise). And he also gives a compelling case for Shakespeare's authorship, although not one that would persuade any die-hard conspiracy theorists.
Ultimately, Shapiro writes a testament to Shakespeare's imagination and range, something that is the ultimate rebuttal of the attempt to reduce the plays to simple roman a clef's about court figures or simple ciphers.
What makes the book so interesting is not that it is worth devoting much mental evidence to the anti-Stratfordians but how much about Shakespeare's life, work, subsequent reception, and evolution of literature, is illuminated by looking at how this movement emerged and gained an increasing amount of strength.
Shapiro traces the history of Shakespeare studies from his death through the early 19th Century, documenting the twists and turns of how little fragments of evidence about Shakespeare's life emerged, dotted with several episodes of forgery, and culminating in a number of prominent Shakespeare scholars starting in the 1700s who viewed his works through the prism of psychology, autobiography, and other similar perspectives.
Shapiro argues that it was these well meaning attempts to fill in the gaps with other disciplines that also opened up the belief that the same person who was a moneylender and a grain merchant could not have written about courts and kings and the other aspects of Shakespeare. The first set of theories focused on Bacon, and comical ideas about elaborate ciphers in Shakespeare's work. This was followed by the view that Edward de Vere wrote Shakespeare's works, a theory undeterred by de Vere's death in 1604, a decade before the final Shakespeare play.
Shapiro explains why these theories appealed to so many people (e.g., Twain was writing his autobiography, believed that all of his works were written directly from his own experience, and could not imagine someone else doing otherwise). And he also gives a compelling case for Shakespeare's authorship, although not one that would persuade any die-hard conspiracy theorists.
Ultimately, Shapiro writes a testament to Shakespeare's imagination and range, something that is the ultimate rebuttal of the attempt to reduce the plays to simple roman a clef's about court figures or simple ciphers.
What makes the book so interesting is not that it is worth devoting much mental evidence to the anti-Stratfordians but how much about Shakespeare's life, work, subsequent reception, and evolution of literature, is illuminated by looking at how this movement emerged and gained an increasing amount of strength.
mhicks1988's review against another edition
4.0
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.
saraleoni's review against another edition
4.0
Very good. After a look at the historical Shakespeare, completely explores all the valid alternatives before coming to a conclusion.
kungfool's review against another edition
3.0
After chapter after chapter of detailed history on the Baconians and Oxfordians, it takes only one chapter at the end to counter their theories with simple reason and indisputable facts about the man from Stratford. Will, you are still the reigning champion.
blancwene's review against another edition
4.0
Excellent overview of the history behind both the authorship question as well as the changing ways that we have approached literature. Shapiro covers how Baconians and Oxfordians came to their separate conclusions, as well as how our perception of Shakespeare has altered over the centuries. The last chapter in particular is Shapiro's case for Shakespeare, which I found surprisingly interesting to read after the previous parts.
paging_snidget's review against another edition
5.0
Really interesting book. Well researched. A well-balanced look at each of the possible authors. fascinating to see how each of the rumours got started. Very well done.
nealalex's review against another edition
4.0
Surely the author of Hamlet was anguished by his father’s untimely death. And the author of Othello maddened by marital jealousy. And since he also wrote Sonnet 20, he was bisexual. So if Shakespeare was none of these things, he can’t’ve been the author.
That’s the romantic idea of authorship which Shapiro uses to explain the need to credit Francis Bacon, the Earl of Oxford, anyone with a brighter intellectual aura than a jobbing actor who left off writing when he’d accumulated enough capital for a small town retirement.
That’s the romantic idea of authorship which Shapiro uses to explain the need to credit Francis Bacon, the Earl of Oxford, anyone with a brighter intellectual aura than a jobbing actor who left off writing when he’d accumulated enough capital for a small town retirement.