Naomi's review

[close]

blog this review

Copy/paste the text below into your blog.

<a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1740851.Shakespeare_s_Wife?utm_medium=api&amp;utm_source=blog_review" style="float: left; padding-right: 20px"><img alt="Shakespeare's Wife" border="0" src="http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1187640348m/1740851.jpg" /></a> <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1740851.Shakespeare_s_Wife?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review">Shakespeare's Wife</a> by <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/56667.Germaine_Greer">Germaine Greer</a> 
 <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/7780699?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review"><h3>My review</h3></a>
 rating: 4 of 5 stars I am always surprised by Greer's actual writing. Her public persona is so contentious and brash. Previous to this book I had only read Greer's feminist writing (i.e. 'female eunich' and 'the whole woman'). Particularly in this book, she has a very measured and well supported style that weaves a cross stitch of fact and speculation into an enjoyable tale. She makes sure that the reader knows when she is fictionalising. Her main argument is that in the absence of documentary evidence why are Shakespearean scholars so willing to believe that Ann Hathaway/Shakespeare was a viper tongued, ugly, unlovable woman who Shakespeare couldn't wait to abandon after having been prodded to the alter at the end of a shotgun? In the process of making sense of what documents that do survive from the late 16th century on William and Ann themselves and using other sources unconnected to the Shakespeares, she covers a very interesting period in the economic and spiritual life of the family in Stradford. I enjoyed particularly Greer's analysis of what activities a housewife would be engaged in both in terms of keeping home and hearth but also in contributing to the family income as well. In terms of an analysis of academic prejudice Greer manages to get the reader thinking once again about what kind of woman Ann Shakespeare might have been and assessing our own social moors.
 
 To quote the last paragraph in the book... 'all this, in common with most of this book, is heresy, and probably neither truer nor less true than the accepted prejudice. Ann Shakespeare cannot sensibly be written out of her husband's life if only because he himself was so aware of marriage as a challenging way of life... The Shakespeare wallahs have succeeded in creating a Bard in their own likeness, that is to say, incapable of relating to women, and have then vilified the one woman who remained true to him all his life, in order to exonerate him. There can be no doubt that Shakespeae neglected his wife, embarrassed her and even humiliated her, but attempting to justify his behaviour by vilifying her is puerile. The defenders of Ann Hathaway are usually derided as sentimental when they are trying to simply be fair. It is a more insidious variety of sentimentality that wants to believe that women who are ill treated must have brought it upon themselves. The creator of Hero, Desdemona, Imogen and Hermione knew better. Ann might say like Lady Macduff: I have done no harm. But I remember now I am in his earthly world, where to do harm is often laudable, to do good sometime accounted dangerous folly. Why then, alas, do I put up that womanly defence to say I have done no harm? (IV. ii. 75-80)'. 
 
 
 A satisfying conclusion to a satisfying book.
 <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/list/100635?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review">View all my reviews.</a>

Naomi's review
rating:

bookshelves: мозговая-власть
recommended for: shakespeare enthusiasts and historical women's study buffs
status: Read in October, 2007

I am always surprised by Greer's actual writing. Her public persona is so contentious and brash. Previous to this book I had only read Greer's feminist writing (i.e. 'female eunich' and 'the whole woman'). Particularly in this book, she has a very measured and well supported style that weaves a cross stitch of fact and speculation into an enjoyable tale. She makes sure that the reader knows when she is fictionalising. Her main argument is that in the absence of documentary evidence why are Shakespearean scholars so willing to believe that Ann Hathaway/Shakespeare was a viper tongued, ugly, unlovable woman who Shakespeare couldn't wait to abandon after having been prodded to the alter at the end of a shotgun? In the process of making sense of what documents that do survive from the late 16th century on William and Ann themselves and using other sources unconnected to the Shakespeares, she covers a very interesting period in the economic and spiritual life of the family in Stradford. I e...more I am always surprised by Greer's actual writing. Her public persona is so contentious and brash. Previous to this book I had only read Greer's feminist writing (i.e. 'female eunich' and 'the whole woman'). Particularly in this book, she has a very measured and well supported style that weaves a cross stitch of fact and speculation into an enjoyable tale. She makes sure that the reader knows when she is fictionalising. Her main argument is that in the absence of documentary evidence why are Shakespearean scholars so willing to believe that Ann Hathaway/Shakespeare was a viper tongued, ugly, unlovable woman who Shakespeare couldn't wait to abandon after having been prodded to the alter at the end of a shotgun? In the process of making sense of what documents that do survive from the late 16th century on William and Ann themselves and using other sources unconnected to the Shakespeares, she covers a very interesting period in the economic and spiritual life of the family in Stradford. I enjoyed particularly Greer's analysis of what activities a housewife would be engaged in both in terms of keeping home and hearth but also in contributing to the family income as well. In terms of an analysis of academic prejudice Greer manages to get the reader thinking once again about what kind of woman Ann Shakespeare might have been and assessing our own social moors.

To quote the last paragraph in the book... 'all this, in common with most of this book, is heresy, and probably neither truer nor less true than the accepted prejudice. Ann Shakespeare cannot sensibly be written out of her husband's life if only because he himself was so aware of marriage as a challenging way of life... The Shakespeare wallahs have succeeded in creating a Bard in their own likeness, that is to say, incapable of relating to women, and have then vilified the one woman who remained true to him all his life, in order to exonerate him. There can be no doubt that Shakespeae neglected his wife, embarrassed her and even humiliated her, but attempting to justify his behaviour by vilifying her is puerile. The defenders of Ann Hathaway are usually derided as sentimental when they are trying to simply be fair. It is a more insidious variety of sentimentality that wants to believe that women who are ill treated must have brought it upon themselves. The creator of Hero, Desdemona, Imogen and Hermione knew better. Ann might say like Lady Macduff: I have done no harm. But I remember now I am in his earthly world, where to do harm is often laudable, to do good sometime accounted dangerous folly. Why then, alas, do I put up that womanly defence to say I have done no harm? (IV. ii. 75-80)'.

A satisfying conclusion to a satisfying book....less

Like this review? yes (4 people liked it) flag

comments (showing 1-2 of 2)

newest »

date

message 1: by Ali

10/16/2007 12:10AM

wonderful review, I have to read it in some stage. I thought you're already in central asia!