Skip to main content

Shapiro abandons conditional for indicative, sez GG in NS


Germaine Greer hits the ball out of the park in her Oct. 6, 2015 New Statesman review of  James Shapiro's newest Shakespearean biography, 1606: William Shakespeare and the Year of Lear (Simon & Schuster, 2015). Greer says:
"For any writer of an extended narrative the temptation to abandon the conditional for the indicative is almost irresistible and Shapiro has not resisted it."
Greer complains specifically about Shapiro's cavalier attitude toward uncertainties in dating Shakespeare's plays, about unwarranted elaboration of Shakespeare's relationship with London landlady Marie Mountjoy, about inventing the meaning of daughter Susanna's failure to take communion, and other issues. Greer said:
With so little evidence, Shapiro is almost bound to overinterpret it.
. . . 
It is not easy for readers of 1606: William Shakespeare and the Year of Lear to determine when assumption becomes assertion, not least because Shapiro has chosen to provide rather congested endnotes instead of footnotes. This is only too understandable given the blizzard of commentary that surrounds the meagre facts of Shakespeare's life.


In his continuing anxiety to bolster the Stratfordian perspective following his 2010 book Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?, James Shapiro wrote a three-part series, The King & The Playwright: A Jacobean History that appeared on the BBC in 2012 and is available in DVD as "Shakespeare: the King's Man" on Amazon. This work placed Shakespeare firmly in the rhelm of King James and presumably out-of-reach of any nasty Elizabethan pretenders to The Bard's quill and scroll.

Shapiro's book on the topic, 1606: William Shakespeare and the Year of Lear (Simon & Schuster, 2015), debuted yesterday to the acclaim expected for the award-winning professor from Columbia U.

But even Charles Nicholl, in a lavishly positive review in yesterday's Guardian twists himself in knots trying to untangle Shapiro's "novelistic" snarls:
Shapiro demonstrates once again his skill in shaping quantities of research into a brisk and enjoyable narrative. The material is extremely condensed but does not seem so. One could describe certain passages as tending to the 'novelistic' -- a dread word in some adacemic circles -- but animating the historical data is very different from obscuring it with madeup conversations in unevidenced locations.
We say, "Hmmm."

Resources:
http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2015/10/nowhere-man-challenges-tracking-down-shakespeare
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/oct/07/1606-william-shakespeare-and-the-year-of-lear-james-shapiro-review
http://oberonshakespearestudygroup.blogspot.com/2012/04/shapiro-invents-jacobean-shakespeare.html
http://books.simonandschuster.com/The-Year-of-Lear/James-Shapiro/9781416541646
http://www.amazon.com/SHAKESPEARE-KINGS-MAN-James-Shapiro/dp/B00B5DWF18

Popular posts from this blog

Was King Richard III a Control Freak? Science News ... from universities, journals, and other research organizations   Mar. 4, 2013 — University of Leicester psychologists believe Richard III was not a psychopath -- but he may have had control freak tendencies. University of Leicester psychologists have made an analysis of Richard III's character -- aiming to get to the man behind the bones. Professor Mark Lansdale, Head of the University's School of Psychology, and forensic psychologist Dr Julian Boon have put together a psychological analysis of Richard III based on the consensus among historians relating to Richard's experiences and actions. They found that, while there was no evidence for Shakespeare's depiction of Richard III as a psychopath, he may have had "intolerance to uncertainty syndrome" -- which may have manifested in control freak tendencies. The academics presented their findings on Saturday, March 2 at the University

What's a popp'rin' pear?

James Wheaton reported yesterday in the Jackson Citizen Patriot that the Michigan Shakespeare Festival high school tour of Romeo and Juliet was criticized for inappropriate content -- " So me take issue with sexual innuendoes in Michigan Shakespeare Festival’s High School Tour performances of ‘Romeo & Juliet’" : Western [High School] parent Rosie Crowley said she was upset when she heard students laughing about sexual content in the play afterwards. Her son didn’t attend the performance Tuesday because of another commitment, she said.  “I think the theater company should have left out any references that were rated R,” Crowley said. “I would say that I’ve read Shakespeare, and what I was told from the students, I’ve never read anything that bad.”  She said she objected to scenes that involved pelvic thrusting and breast touching and to a line in which Mercutio makes suggestive comments to Romeo after looking up the skirt of a female. The problem with cutting out the naug

Winkler lights the match

by Linda Theil When asked by an interviewer why all the experts disagree with her on the legitimacy of the Shakespeare authorship question, journalist and author Elizabeth Winkler  calmly replied, "You've asked the wrong experts." * With that simple declaration Winkler exploded the topic of Shakespearean authorship forever. Anti-Stratfordians need no smoking gun, no convincing narrative, no reason who, how, when, or why because within the works lies the unassailable argument: Shakespeare's knowledge. Ask the lawyers. Ask the psychologists. Ask the librarians. Ask the historians. Ask the dramaturges. Ask the mathematicians. Ask the Greek scholars. Ask the physicists. Ask the astronomers. Ask the courtiers. Ask the bibliophiles. Ask the Italians. Ask the French. Ask the Russians. Ask the English. Ask everyone. Current academic agreement on a bevy of Shakespearean collaborators springs from an unspoken awareness of how much assistance the Stratfordian presumptive would h