<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Behold the Man!
Review: Books on Shakespeare roughly seem to fall into two categories: Standard scholarly books that downplay the man and focus on the plays and ingenious, entertianing books by frequently learned amateurs of anti-stratfordian theories of authorship. Anti-stratfordians have an advantage with the popular reading public; whereas academics are content to deal with texts as if they have no referents, laypeople necessarily have to ask (as William Paley said in his "natural theology) what kind of man wrote these plays. Anti-stratfordians are all too willing to oblige. Furthermore the field is fairly well uncontested as practically all academics consider anti-stratfordian theories as beneath their contempt. This is a shame because generally they are entirely worthy of contempt. Ian Wilson is educated amateur, with the sort of background one associates with anti-stratfordians. He summarizes and interprets the available evidence and comes to some remarkable conclusions. Best of all, his is not an "anti-anti-stratfordian rant" he concentrates on considering the "stratford man" not knocking other candidates. But the position of there being an "authorship problem" is made untenable. Particularly when read in conjuction with Matus' SHAKESPEARE IN FACT which addresses subsequent assessments of shakespeare (culminating in romantic "bardolatry") as well as a dissection of the claims for Oxford. This even though there are plenty of "arguably"'s, "almost certian"'s, "likely"'s that stud the text which the loyal opposition will make much of. The one substantian objection is that Wilson argues for the likelihood of a position (for example the identity of the "dark lady") and then frequently treats it as establish fact. This is a chief vice of anti-strafordians A few more qualifiers would have enhanced the book's credibility.
Rating: 
Summary: Flawed
Review: This is a fascinating book, but I was dismayed by Wilson's anti-Elizabeth bias. He refers to her as a "hideous old woman" responsible for the death of "many worthy young people" like Mary Queen of Scots and the Earl of Essex. Worthy young people...those two? Mary Stuart was singularly lacking in common sense, and, after catching Mary red-handed plotting against her numerous times, Elizabeth had little choice politically but to execute her. As for Essex, he was a spoiled egomaniac who bit the hand that fed him. Wilson also does himself no service by referring to Robert Cecil as "the little secretary Cecil" or by repeating without caveat a discredited story about how Essex's ring was not given to Elizabeth.
Rating:
Summary: Flawed
Review: This is a fascinating book, but I was dismayed by Wilson's anti-Elizabeth bias. He refers to her as a "hideous old woman" responsible for the death of "many worthy young people" like Mary Queen of Scots and the Earl of Essex. Worthy young people...those two? Mary Stuart was singularly lacking in common sense, and, after catching Mary red-handed plotting against her numerous times, Elizabeth had little choice politically but to execute her. As for Essex, he was a spoiled egomaniac who bit the hand that fed him. Wilson also does himself no service by referring to Robert Cecil as "the little secretary Cecil" or by repeating without caveat a discredited story about how Essex's ring was not given to Elizabeth.
Rating: 
Summary: Wonderful
Review: This is a great book. It is easy to read and it is interesting. Mr. Wilson does not just write about Shakespear and give his theories, he provides reasoned arguments about those theories. Mr. Wilson also provides alternative arguments and alternative theories regarding Shakespear. My only complaint? I'd like to see a list of the main people that are discussed with some clue as to their context. I say this because you will be introduced to someone on page 10 and not read about him again until page 87. A quick reference page would be very helpful in keeping everyone straight. Otherwise, this is a great book.
Enjoy.
Rating:
Summary: Finally a page turning biography
Review: This is very well written account of what we know of Shakespeare's Life. Wilson makes a very persuasive case for Shakespeare as the author of the plays and sonnets. At times his reasoning becomes a little convoluted, but almost all books on subjects like this have some twistings in their reasoning. After reading this I would stand behind Shakespeare on the authorship debate, partly because there is no reason to believe that he did not write the plays. Jeff Anderson
<< 1 >>
| 
