BN.com Gift Guide
Customer Reviews for

Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?

Average Rating 4
( 23 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(11)

4 Star

(5)

3 Star

(4)

2 Star

(2)

1 Star

(1)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously

Most Helpful Favorable Review

3 out of 3 people found this review helpful.

Interesting and thought provoking - With fascinating insights

As a non academic, I read this book with an open mind regarding the authorship debate. I love the plays and sonnets and am generally fascinated by Shakespeare. But beyond that, I have little vested interest in who actually authored Macbeth, Lear or A Midsummer Night's...
As a non academic, I read this book with an open mind regarding the authorship debate. I love the plays and sonnets and am generally fascinated by Shakespeare. But beyond that, I have little vested interest in who actually authored Macbeth, Lear or A Midsummer Night's Dream. The works are brilliant whether penned by "the Glovemaker's son," Bacon, Oxford or any other of the leading candidates. However, as a couch potato historian, I am fascinated by the way we view historical figures,how we put the pieces of their lives together and how that process has changed over time. In my opinion, this is the real strength of Mr. Shapiro's book and I believe the review on this site by Mr. Sherman misses the mark.

James Shapiro is clearly a Stratfordian and admits it early in the book. However, he states his goal is less to engage in the authorship debate than to examine how the debate started and evolved; and what that tells us about we and previous generations view history. By examining anti-Stratfordians such as Helen Keller, Freud and Henry James as well as their writings on the subject, I thihk he achieves his goal remarkably well. Agree or disagree with Shapiro's conclusions as to why Freud found Hamlet so compelling, his arguments are well written and intriguing.

Throughout the book Mr. Shapiro warns us of the natural and dangerous tendency to analyze historical figures from a modern point of view. Since so much modern literature is fundamentally autobiographical, we have trouble imagining that Renaissance Literature could be any different. It's a point that I believe should be kept in mind any time we engage in historical study and, Mr. Shapiro makes it well.

With regard to Mr. Sherman's review, the key is its last line

". . . for a strong anti-Stratfordian such as me, he disappoints."

That says it all. No confirmed Baconian or Oxfordian will be swayed by this book. As far as I can tell, each side in this debate is fully dug in with little willingness to consider other points of view.

That being said, I must take issue with a bit of Mr. Sherman's review. First, I find thinly veiled personal attacks (such as Mr. Sherman's reference to Mr. Shapiro's tenure status) to be less than helpful.

Second, as opposed to Mr. Sherman, I did not get any sense that Mr. Shapiro was retreading a theory that Anti-Stratfordians must be mentally ill. Although the book takes issue with the Anti-Stratfordian point of view, Shapiro himself chastises Stratfordians who responded to Looney's (pronounced Loney) seminal work with puns on his name. In a number of cases, Mr. Shapiro praises anti-Stratfordian analysis, even though he ultimately disagrees with it.

Further, the quote used by Mr. Sherman in his review is taken out of context. Mr. Shapiro certainly argues that early anti-Stratfordians were a product of the romantic era they were born into just as he argues that Freud and Henry James were products of their eras. His goal is less to mock than emphasize his point that it is dangerous to impose modern sensabilities on historical art literature or genius. Hisotry must be viewed through the context of the era we are studying.

I may be a "fence-sitter" but as a layman and disinterested observer of the "Who wrote Shakespeare" debate, I found Contested Will to be entertaining and thought provoking. It inspired me to get more informationon the subject from all sides and isn't that the

posted by John_Lefler on December 20, 2010

Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review

Most Helpful Critical Review

2 out of 9 people found this review helpful.

A Good Try, but Disappointing

I think Professor Shapiro had a rare opportunity to address this question fairly and without prejudice, but it is no surprise that he concluded on the side of the Stratford man. Given his inherent conflict of interest on the subject, it's sad to see the same old, tired...
I think Professor Shapiro had a rare opportunity to address this question fairly and without prejudice, but it is no surprise that he concluded on the side of the Stratford man. Given his inherent conflict of interest on the subject, it's sad to see the same old, tired arguments being made. It is a subtle, albeit sophisticated version of the standard ridicule by anti-Stratfordians that doubters are all mentally ill. Yet Shapiro goes a step further by blaming the problem on early dissenters as being psychological Romantics and thus have a "failure to grasp what could not be imagined."

It is true that anti-Stratfordians are a fringe lot and Sharpiro diligently recites their cryptograms, fabrications and deceptions. Yet like so many tenure-invested scholars, he cannot appreciate why this problem will not go away and why the authorship question is so appealing. It is the biographical aspect of the plays and poems, which Shapiro insists we ignore, that give such a powerful basis for skeptics. Charles Beauclerk's nemesis book, Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom, brilliantly exposes this obvious theme (although he goes too far in my opinion by reasoning that the true author was the son of the queen and thus required anonymity). Yet Beauclerk's insights and explanations about the life of the writer (Earl of Oxford) and the works are profound and should be seriously considered.

Shapiro clearly hoped this book would put the final nail in the coffin of the authorship controversy but I think it will only inflame it (surely he was warned). Like Alan Nelson in Monstrous Adversary, he simply cannot be objective, yet he works hard at appearing so. This might push a few fence-sitters his way but it will likely only be appreciated by died-in-the-wool Stratfordians as another book to rationalize their myths.

The jury is still out, but for a strong anti-Stratfordian such as me, he disappoints.

Randall Sherman

posted by Randall_Sherman on May 9, 2010

Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
Sort by: Showing 1 – 20 of 23 Customer Reviews
Page 1 of 2
  • Posted December 20, 2010

    Interesting and thought provoking - With fascinating insights

    As a non academic, I read this book with an open mind regarding the authorship debate. I love the plays and sonnets and am generally fascinated by Shakespeare. But beyond that, I have little vested interest in who actually authored Macbeth, Lear or A Midsummer Night's Dream. The works are brilliant whether penned by "the Glovemaker's son," Bacon, Oxford or any other of the leading candidates. However, as a couch potato historian, I am fascinated by the way we view historical figures,how we put the pieces of their lives together and how that process has changed over time. In my opinion, this is the real strength of Mr. Shapiro's book and I believe the review on this site by Mr. Sherman misses the mark.

    James Shapiro is clearly a Stratfordian and admits it early in the book. However, he states his goal is less to engage in the authorship debate than to examine how the debate started and evolved; and what that tells us about we and previous generations view history. By examining anti-Stratfordians such as Helen Keller, Freud and Henry James as well as their writings on the subject, I thihk he achieves his goal remarkably well. Agree or disagree with Shapiro's conclusions as to why Freud found Hamlet so compelling, his arguments are well written and intriguing.

    Throughout the book Mr. Shapiro warns us of the natural and dangerous tendency to analyze historical figures from a modern point of view. Since so much modern literature is fundamentally autobiographical, we have trouble imagining that Renaissance Literature could be any different. It's a point that I believe should be kept in mind any time we engage in historical study and, Mr. Shapiro makes it well.

    With regard to Mr. Sherman's review, the key is its last line

    ". . . for a strong anti-Stratfordian such as me, he disappoints."

    That says it all. No confirmed Baconian or Oxfordian will be swayed by this book. As far as I can tell, each side in this debate is fully dug in with little willingness to consider other points of view.

    That being said, I must take issue with a bit of Mr. Sherman's review. First, I find thinly veiled personal attacks (such as Mr. Sherman's reference to Mr. Shapiro's tenure status) to be less than helpful.

    Second, as opposed to Mr. Sherman, I did not get any sense that Mr. Shapiro was retreading a theory that Anti-Stratfordians must be mentally ill. Although the book takes issue with the Anti-Stratfordian point of view, Shapiro himself chastises Stratfordians who responded to Looney's (pronounced Loney) seminal work with puns on his name. In a number of cases, Mr. Shapiro praises anti-Stratfordian analysis, even though he ultimately disagrees with it.

    Further, the quote used by Mr. Sherman in his review is taken out of context. Mr. Shapiro certainly argues that early anti-Stratfordians were a product of the romantic era they were born into just as he argues that Freud and Henry James were products of their eras. His goal is less to mock than emphasize his point that it is dangerous to impose modern sensabilities on historical art literature or genius. Hisotry must be viewed through the context of the era we are studying.

    I may be a "fence-sitter" but as a layman and disinterested observer of the "Who wrote Shakespeare" debate, I found Contested Will to be entertaining and thought provoking. It inspired me to get more informationon the subject from all sides and isn't that the

    3 out of 3 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted May 9, 2010

    A Good Try, but Disappointing

    I think Professor Shapiro had a rare opportunity to address this question fairly and without prejudice, but it is no surprise that he concluded on the side of the Stratford man. Given his inherent conflict of interest on the subject, it's sad to see the same old, tired arguments being made. It is a subtle, albeit sophisticated version of the standard ridicule by anti-Stratfordians that doubters are all mentally ill. Yet Shapiro goes a step further by blaming the problem on early dissenters as being psychological Romantics and thus have a "failure to grasp what could not be imagined."

    It is true that anti-Stratfordians are a fringe lot and Sharpiro diligently recites their cryptograms, fabrications and deceptions. Yet like so many tenure-invested scholars, he cannot appreciate why this problem will not go away and why the authorship question is so appealing. It is the biographical aspect of the plays and poems, which Shapiro insists we ignore, that give such a powerful basis for skeptics. Charles Beauclerk's nemesis book, Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom, brilliantly exposes this obvious theme (although he goes too far in my opinion by reasoning that the true author was the son of the queen and thus required anonymity). Yet Beauclerk's insights and explanations about the life of the writer (Earl of Oxford) and the works are profound and should be seriously considered.

    Shapiro clearly hoped this book would put the final nail in the coffin of the authorship controversy but I think it will only inflame it (surely he was warned). Like Alan Nelson in Monstrous Adversary, he simply cannot be objective, yet he works hard at appearing so. This might push a few fence-sitters his way but it will likely only be appreciated by died-in-the-wool Stratfordians as another book to rationalize their myths.

    The jury is still out, but for a strong anti-Stratfordian such as me, he disappoints.

    Randall Sherman

    2 out of 9 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted May 5, 2014

    4th place

    Doesn't matter anymore i got 1,2, and 3 anyways.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 12, 2013

    To tessa from a great author please respond

    You and your beloved band To Be One are there at the same beach ur at. U have ooved them since they were on abdc when they were the iconic boyz. Now that they arent the iconic boyz u love then erven more but now Louis is even cuter then before. U and ur best friends went to the beach for the last day of summer. Then u see louis with his gorgeose abd coming towards u but then mikey starts coming then jason and madison. Then louis and them are all fighting over who gets to ask u out but u just there actin l cool then louis ask u out because hes the closest to ur age he says "hey beautiful what are u doin here" you tell him "just here hanin with my bff" he says cool and then "ur to pretty to be alone so why dont u be mine" u say "yea id like that" he says great and goes and brags to everybody rlse then u and ur friend start jumping up and down like a kangaroo who drank red bull. Then next day liuis and u go on ur date to breadsticks u order a pizza and then go watch a romantic movie then a candle light dessert picnic on the beach. U l him u loveed spending time with him and he aays "u know would even better?" U say "what" he says "if u be my girlfriend" u say yes then he walks u homeu call ur best friend victoria and tell her. U and her scream ur mom asked what happend u just said nothin. Next part if u would oike it just eespond fyi tell ne if u even know who the iconic boyz are.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted April 13, 2013

    What does the author conclude?

    I got the sample

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted April 5, 2013

    Im

    Summersnow

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted March 27, 2013

    I am signing up for the writing contest

    My name is Mochapaw and belong to a family clan called Mysteryclan at tropical paradise all results.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted March 27, 2013

    LegendClan's Story:Emerald Prolougue

    Coming soon...

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted July 19, 2012

    WRITING CONTEST

    Sign up here. Your name and yiur clan if you have one. You have three days until the sign up is closed. Go to next result to see thr theam

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted March 16, 2012

    I listened to the unabridged audio version of this book, along w

    I listened to the unabridged audio version of this book, along with another seven or eight audiobooks about Shakespeare, and found it fascinating (as was his other book, A Year In The Life Of William Shakespeare). While I've read many biographies of Shakespeare, it was uniquely interesting to read a book that delved into the authorship controversy from a historical perspective. As a former student of the Kennedy assassination controversy, I found many similarities in the arguments about "who did it." I'd love to be able to entertain the idea that some well-oiled conspiracy allowed Oxford to write the plays, but it seems to me more likely that the plays were created by an ambitious and theatrically-skilled "glover's son" than by a jaded nobleman. How many great works of literature, in any country and in any time period, have been written by authors who were wealthy, upper class and highly educated?

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted January 19, 2011

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted March 1, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted August 11, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted January 31, 2012

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted April 24, 2011

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted July 28, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted May 13, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted December 13, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted February 16, 2012

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted January 15, 2011

    No text was provided for this review.

Sort by: Showing 1 – 20 of 23 Customer Reviews
Page 1 of 2