Rating: 
Summary: The Great Debate
Review: Did William Shakespeare write all of those plays and sonnets? That is certainly the conventional story. But, there are problems with that version, as there are problems with all of the alternative theories examined in this fascinating book. William Shakespeare was an actor and the owner of a theater. The only thing that connects him to his plays is his name at the top of them, which is fairly strong evidence.This book examines the many alternate theories. Possible identities of the true authors include Francis Bacon, Edward de Vere (Earl of Oxford, William Stanley (Earl of Derby), Roger Manners (Earl of Rutland and Christopher Marlowe. The theory behind the possibility that Shakespeare stole other's works has problems. But this theory also has surprising evidence in its favor. Most likely it is a mystery never to be solved. But it certainly makes for a good armchair debate.
Rating: 
Summary: The Mysterious Bard (or Whomever)
Review: I read Michell's book just before embarking on a 3 week Shakespeare workshop at the reconstructed Globe in London this past summer; intriguing, infuriating, thought-provoking, insightful, Michell's historical and cultural tour of England through authorship gives the reader a chance to make us his own mind, quite unlike most other authorship books. A bit tedious at times, but certainly not lacking details and impeccable research.
Rating: 
Summary: A Mystery Without a Resolution
Review: In some ways, the Shakespeare authorship question is not well-formed. Without a doubt, William Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him. The question, however, remains: Who was Shakespeare? The distinction isn't solely a matter of semantics. There are a few fleeting references to him in London notices of the day which make it clear he was already known in theater circles. However, the dearth of biographical details of the writer of the greatest plays in the English language--and possibly any language--sends some scholars into a flurry of speculation. John Michell's book, Who Wrote Shakespeare?, is not outwardly a proponent of any particular line of speculation, but more a compelling survey of the main theories, including the orthodox theory--that the man from Stratford-upon-Avon was the responsible party. To distinguish this man from the famous author, in case they might be different, Michell writes "Shakespeare" only for the author, and "Shakspere" for the man whose supposedly backward upbringing is an inspiration for many "heretics"--those who believe that Shakspere could not have written the plays. Michell begins by describing the author. Through the incredible breadth and depth of the plays, it becomes clear that Shakespeare had command of a wide range of knowledge--from law to the classics to court life, even to medicine. It seems impossible that any one person could have brought to bear so much learning, but Michell does well by presenting all of the challenges that any budding theorist must contend with. (Later, in fact, Michell devotes one chapter to the group theories, in which the plays were written by more than one person.) He then proceeds to go through the candidates, one by one, starting with the most obvious one: William Shakspere. The most imposing obstacle that the Stratfordians--as the orthodox contingent is called--must contend with is not Shakspere's learning, for there are many years and details that are missing from his life story and he might have picked up his learning during any of the gaps. No, the most crushing blow is delivered by the legacy of this allegedly intensely literary man, who nonetheless did not teach his youngest daughter to read, and mentioned no books or manuscripts in his will. How, the heritics ask, could the greatest playwright in the history of literature leave his descendants so poor in education? At this point, the amateur heretic sniffs the kill. But no other candidate for the Shakespeare mantle is safe, either. Everyone is suspect: Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, has the necessary learning, but he died in 1604, long before many of the plays were supposedly written. Francis Bacon lived long enough, to be sure, but the evidence in his favor is not strong. The most intriguing candidate is Christopher Marlowe. He is known to have had a hand in many of the early Shakespeare plays, works unquestionably written by Marlowe have a style eerily similar (by quantitative metrics) to Shakespeare's, and unlike the other candidates, Marlowe was a professional writer who undoubtedly knew Shakespeare--whoever the latter was. The one problem is a thorny one: the official story is that Marlowe was murdered in 1593, long before even the Earl of Oxford. However, Marlowe was involved in espionage, and his murder is shrouded in a faint cloud of suspicion. Michell presents the case that Marlowe did not die as was described in documents, but was spirited away to Italy, from where he later returned to write much and possibly most or all of the remaining Shakespeare canon. The narrative is brisk and engaging all throughout the book, but especially here in the cloak-and-dagger Marlovian drama. In the end, readers expecting an answer to the question will be disappointed, but Michell warns his readers of that periodically. The real prize is a careful, balanced presentation of the facts and conjectures as they have been uncovered and presented throughout history; most anyone who begins this book will know something of the controversy, but rare is the reader who will not gain something of an appreciation for many of the men who would be Shakespeare.
Rating:
Summary: A Mystery Without a Resolution
Review: In some ways, the Shakespeare authorship question is not well-formed. Without a doubt, William Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him. The question, however, remains: Who was Shakespeare? The distinction isn't solely a matter of semantics. There are a few fleeting references to him in London notices of the day which make it clear he was already known in theater circles. However, the dearth of biographical details of the writer of the greatest plays in the English language--and possibly any language--sends some scholars into a flurry of speculation. John Michell's book, Who Wrote Shakespeare?, is not outwardly a proponent of any particular line of speculation, but more a compelling survey of the main theories, including the orthodox theory--that the man from Stratford-upon-Avon was the responsible party. To distinguish this man from the famous author, in case they might be different, Michell writes "Shakespeare" only for the author, and "Shakspere" for the man whose supposedly backward upbringing is an inspiration for many "heretics"--those who believe that Shakspere could not have written the plays. Michell begins by describing the author. Through the incredible breadth and depth of the plays, it becomes clear that Shakespeare had command of a wide range of knowledge--from law to the classics to court life, even to medicine. It seems impossible that any one person could have brought to bear so much learning, but Michell does well by presenting all of the challenges that any budding theorist must contend with. (Later, in fact, Michell devotes one chapter to the group theories, in which the plays were written by more than one person.) He then proceeds to go through the candidates, one by one, starting with the most obvious one: William Shakspere. The most imposing obstacle that the Stratfordians--as the orthodox contingent is called--must contend with is not Shakspere's learning, for there are many years and details that are missing from his life story and he might have picked up his learning during any of the gaps. No, the most crushing blow is delivered by the legacy of this allegedly intensely literary man, who nonetheless did not teach his youngest daughter to read, and mentioned no books or manuscripts in his will. How, the heritics ask, could the greatest playwright in the history of literature leave his descendants so poor in education? At this point, the amateur heretic sniffs the kill. But no other candidate for the Shakespeare mantle is safe, either. Everyone is suspect: Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, has the necessary learning, but he died in 1604, long before many of the plays were supposedly written. Francis Bacon lived long enough, to be sure, but the evidence in his favor is not strong. The most intriguing candidate is Christopher Marlowe. He is known to have had a hand in many of the early Shakespeare plays, works unquestionably written by Marlowe have a style eerily similar (by quantitative metrics) to Shakespeare's, and unlike the other candidates, Marlowe was a professional writer who undoubtedly knew Shakespeare--whoever the latter was. The one problem is a thorny one: the official story is that Marlowe was murdered in 1593, long before even the Earl of Oxford. However, Marlowe was involved in espionage, and his murder is shrouded in a faint cloud of suspicion. Michell presents the case that Marlowe did not die as was described in documents, but was spirited away to Italy, from where he later returned to write much and possibly most or all of the remaining Shakespeare canon. The narrative is brisk and engaging all throughout the book, but especially here in the cloak-and-dagger Marlovian drama. In the end, readers expecting an answer to the question will be disappointed, but Michell warns his readers of that periodically. The real prize is a careful, balanced presentation of the facts and conjectures as they have been uncovered and presented throughout history; most anyone who begins this book will know something of the controversy, but rare is the reader who will not gain something of an appreciation for many of the men who would be Shakespeare.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant, cogent piece.
Review: Just finished reading this... what a wonderful overview of the 'authorship question'. Any Shakespeare student/afionado should read this. Michell takes you through all the stages of authorship scholarship with no bias whatsoever, and presents the cases so clearly studied, that one moves from one personna to another, saying, 'yes, this must be the one.' Brilliant scholary study presented in absolutely clear style, accessible to the lay reader. At the end, the conclusions are your own. Certainly Will. S. was a player, but only that.... I am buying two copies for friends and family who will love it. What more can one say?
Rating:
Summary: Dive in... but keep your skepticism alert
Review: Michell presents one of the liveliest and most wide-ranging surveys of the ''Shakespeare authorship'' question. Refreshingly, his presentation is devoid of the rabies infecting most writers who have already wedded themselves to Stratfordian (orthodox), Baconian, Oxfordian, or Marlovian conclusions. He keeps his sense of humor about the ironies of the arguments, and gives the reader an appreciation of how easy it is for those who only read one viewpoint to feel convinced that their candidate and explanation are the be-all and end-all. Unfortunately, one volume cannot do justice to all the different data, issues, and perspectives needing consideration. And although there is a considerable bibliography for further study, there are also unkind omissions: Michell makes many statements and interpretations without citing his sources. In the study of Shakespeare it is essential to go back to primary sources, following Hamlet's imperative: Believe none of us! When some of Michell's pronouncements are tracked down, it turns out that they are not established fact but vigorously debated questions. Nevertheless, Michell's volume is a much better place to start surveying the issues than those of true believers populating much of the Oxfordian, Baconian, and Stratfordian popular ranks. Plus... it's an entertaining, fun read.
Rating:
Summary: Dive in... but keep your skepticism alert
Review: Michell presents one of the liveliest and most wide-ranging surveys of the ''Shakespeare authorship'' question. Refreshingly, his presentation is devoid of the rabies infecting most writers who have already wedded themselves to Stratfordian (orthodox), Baconian, Oxfordian, or Marlovian conclusions. He keeps his sense of humor about the ironies of the arguments, and gives the reader an appreciation of how easy it is for those who only read one viewpoint to feel convinced that their candidate and explanation are the be-all and end-all. Unfortunately, one volume cannot do justice to all the different data, issues, and perspectives needing consideration. And although there is a considerable bibliography for further study, there are also unkind omissions: Michell makes many statements and interpretations without citing his sources. In the study of Shakespeare it is essential to go back to primary sources, following Hamlet's imperative: Believe none of us! When some of Michell's pronouncements are tracked down, it turns out that they are not established fact but vigorously debated questions. Nevertheless, Michell's volume is a much better place to start surveying the issues than those of true believers populating much of the Oxfordian, Baconian, and Stratfordian popular ranks. Plus... it's an entertaining, fun read.
Rating: 
Summary: About as good as this stuff gets, but still...
Review: The authorship debate quickly turns tiresome, diving into far-fetched conspiracy theories and silly amateur cryptography, which is why most sensible types prefer to simply read Shakespeare. John Michell's book on the debate is probably as good as a specimen of the genre as I've seen--which doesn't mean that it's particularly coherent or persuasive. Let's face it--to doubt that William Shakespeare of Stratford (or "Shakspere", as Michell prefers to call the actor) wrote the plays published under his name, one has to apply to a Renaissance writer a wholly anachronistic idea of what authorship means. Ben Jonson, more than anybody else, invented the modern idea of the "author," and that's why we know more about Jonson than about any other Elizabeth dramatist. Michell does a nice job of summing up and exploring the arguments of all the rival camps, somehow managing not to make them seem silly (not an easy task!), but he misses the main point: Sure, we don't know as much about Shakespeare as we'd like to--but gaps in the biographical record can't be taken as evidence that the man whose name is on the plays didn't write them after all. It's the idolatry that the West has given Shakespeare over the last 250 years that leads to the sort of silliness represented by Oxfordians, Baconians, and the other armies of ninnies Michell describes so sympathetically. Why aren't they doing this to Thomas Middleton, or Thomas Heywood, or any number of Renaissance dramatists about whom we know even less than we do about Shakespeare? If you're going to cook up a conspiracy theory--and every one of these rival claimants presupposes such--then choose the biggest target possible. Me, I'm working on a book that shows that the Bible was written by a team consisting of Homer, Euripides, and the author of the Epic of Gilgamesh. But seriously, if you have to read one (entire) book on the authorship question, Michell is probably the place to go. If you value your time, read the chapter on the debate in Samuel Schoenbaum's *Shakespeare's Lives.* Schoenbaum's a real scholar (unlike Michell, he knows something about Renaissance history, printing technology, and literary culture), and he's at least funny.
Rating:
Summary: Title???
Review: This book is a good one if you are new to the Authorship controversy. It outlines the most popular views without much bias (until the end) so it's easy to form your own opinions. Although, some of the candiates for writing Shakespeare, understandably got more attention than others (Bacon, Marlowe, etc.).
If you are looking for something interesting to read and have a little cash in your wallet, get this book. It gives you a good way to kill some time on the weekend and fill up your brain with good conversation pieces.
Rating:
Summary: Absolutely outstanding review of the debate
Review: This is probably the best book in print on the question of the authorship of the Shakespeare plays. It is engrossing, readable, and the material is well organized and easy to follow, which is no small task in dealing with this subject. The Shakespeare Claimants, a book from the 1960's on this subject, now out of print, is much better in my opinion, because its author is not afraid to comment on the relative rationality of the different theories. Author John Michell has chosen a different approach: Michell is equivocal in his treatment of the different theories of authorship. He therefore reports with a straight face such absurdities as the Baconian ciphers, and the idea that the Deptford police conspired with Christopher Marlowe to fake his murder. In that his intent is to be neutral, he is extremely successful. And in all fairness, I'll note, that he does not give space to patent insanities, such as the theory that Queen Elizabeth I wrote the plays. However, he does not, in my opinion, deal adequately with the issue of "the secret that was not a secret." He mentions all the times that theorists use as evidence, incidents when William Shakespeare the actor is passed over for some sanction that befalls one of the theorists over the text of one of the plays. This is proof positive, say the theorists, that someone knew Shakespeare the actor was not Shakespeare the author; this demolishes earlier arguments of the theorists that Shakespeare was used as a cover because the real author could not be known as a playwright. While such situations come up time and again, Michell never ties them all together to make one great sweep at the idea of an authorship question in the first place. Indeed, this is something else I found lacking in the book. There is no general discussion of the unliklihood that anyone but the actor wrote the plays with the name "Shakespeare." But Michell does add something to the picture that most of the theorists have lacked, and this admittedly does add strength to the question. This is a general knowledge of Elizabethan history, literature, and society. He is able to tame some of the wilder aspects of the theories with his superior knowledge. If your interest is in Shakespeare, the actor, or in Shakespearean literature and criticism, you may want to throw this book against the wall after a couple of chapters. But if the Shakespeare Question intrigues you, or if crackpot conspiracy theories in general interest you, you'll love this book.
|
