What do you think?
Rate this book
101 Things You Didn't Know About Shakespeare: His Secret Loves! His Artistic Feuds! His Biggest Flops!
Every student encounters the work of William Shakespeare somewhere in the course of his or her academic life. But how many people know that Shakespeare himself never attended university? Or that some people think he was a plagiarist? And others don’t think he existed at all! For novices and Shakespeare-philes alike, 101 Things You Didn’t Know about Shakespeare is a treasure trove of fun facts and delightful trivia.
256 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2005
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
July 7, 2009
I knew them. Every single one, I already knew. Talk about false advertising. Okay, perhaps that's not really fair. After all, I've read plently of books about Shakespeare and this one is for Shakespeare newbies. If you have read just one other book about Shakespeare, you can skip this one.
For newbies, I guess it isn't a bad book. It has a somewhat engaging style, I suppose. I say "I suppose" because it wore just a tad thin after awhile. It seems that Ware kept trying to be funny, and you could feel her trying to be funny. A good example of a funny Shakespeare is Reduced Shakespeare The Attention-Impaired Reader's Guide to the World's Best Playwright Abridged . Ware doesn't seem to be going for a laugh a minute, but she tries too hard.
I did have a couple of problems with some of the facts. The section about the plays could have been shorter, and really doesn't say anything. The bit about Shakespeare's marriage is guesswork and follows the old gossip bit. It made me want to re-read Shakespeare's Wife. Also, if you are talking about early performances of Shakespeare in America, you could at least mention the first professional performance of R&J had a Romeo making love to a Juliet who was his mother in real life.
For newbies, I guess it isn't a bad book. It has a somewhat engaging style, I suppose. I say "I suppose" because it wore just a tad thin after awhile. It seems that Ware kept trying to be funny, and you could feel her trying to be funny. A good example of a funny Shakespeare is Reduced Shakespeare The Attention-Impaired Reader's Guide to the World's Best Playwright Abridged . Ware doesn't seem to be going for a laugh a minute, but she tries too hard.
I did have a couple of problems with some of the facts. The section about the plays could have been shorter, and really doesn't say anything. The bit about Shakespeare's marriage is guesswork and follows the old gossip bit. It made me want to re-read Shakespeare's Wife. Also, if you are talking about early performances of Shakespeare in America, you could at least mention the first professional performance of R&J had a Romeo making love to a Juliet who was his mother in real life.
January 26, 2021
Just wee bite size stories which are covered in greater detail in other autobiographical books.
Would definitely recommend to whet the appetite of anyone interested in Shakespeare
Would definitely recommend to whet the appetite of anyone interested in Shakespeare
March 14, 2019
It would have definitely surprised me if this book had taught me 101 things I didn't know about Shakespeare considering the lengths to which I studied and read whilst at school and at uni. (At uni I chose an entire module on Shakespeare one term, in addition to a Renaissance module the previous year. Ha.) But having said that, I did actually find out a lot more; though more so contextually speaking than biographically speaking. It was also interesting to read how the legacy of his work has impacted upon our recent past. The book as a whole was nicely laid out in bitesize chunks within broader sections, so easy to digest. At times the humour was a little forced, and the American style was a tiny barrier for an English reader. All in all, has reminded me of why my firmly cemented desire to read all of Shakespeare's works is on my bucket list.
January 6, 2023
101 Things You Didn’t Know About Shakespeare if you know absolutely nothing about Shakespeare. Also the interesting facts aren’t interesting and way too much time was spent going over people who *didn’t* write Shakespeare’s plays. Plus some of the facts aren’t even about Shakespeare. I wish I had just read a biography instead.
November 2, 2022
Such a disappointment. Almost nothing about our beloved William Shakespeare. Too much history and so many things that aren't related to him.
December 29, 2016
This book is a more serious collection of facts and logical surmises than the title would suggest. It does not go too much for the gossipy celebrity garbage that the title indicates. It's an entertaining enough read, written for a rookie Bardophile who knows nothing about the Bard. It gets a couple of minor things wrong--I wish I'd put a post-it on the page, but I didn't--but overall it gets high grades for accuracy, and for using a little common sense and playing down inane ideas. For example, it says there is no "controversy" but the authorship of the plays, which is good, because there isn't. The authors contend, as I do and as do most people who take their Shakespeare seriously, that Shakespeare in fact wrote all the plays that his good friends said he did, and that his genius more than made up for any lack of advanced education. The grammar school education he got was arguably better than most Bachelor programs we see today, and genius doesn't need university, anyway. Einstein, it should be remembered, never graduated high school. Yes, he taught at Princeton, and lived there, but a teacher once said he was an idiot because he wasn't interested in tying his shoelaces.
The one thing in this book I didn't know relates to what Shakespeare may have been doing between 1585 to 1592, or so. Perhaps a teaching position? Why not? A will, left by one Alexander Houghton, mentions a tutor named "William Shakeshafte" who had "connections to the theatre." But that's not his name, you say. But it is, in a way. Shakespeare himself was "Shakspere" on his baptismal certificate; "Shagspere" on his marriage bond; and "Shackspeare" in his will. His 6 surviving signatures all say something different. You would think that a man would know how to spell his own name, right? But Shakespeare--who never spelled it like I just did--didn't seem to care. And nobody else did, either. And since clerks of the time could spell as well as the general populace (which means, not so well), and since in his day, someone in Shakespeare's world would have heard him say "Shack-spur," and since nobody gave a damn how someone referred to himself, it is possible. And, besides Shakespeare's brother (for a couple of years), how many Shakespeares could be in the London theatre world between 1590 and 1595, when this will was written? And, by the way, is it possible that William Wriothesley, Shakespeare's patron during the Plague years of the mid-1590s, took him to Italy with him? Wriothesley was known to travel there a lot, and more of Shakespeare's plays take place in Italy than anywhere else. I'm going to say No to this possibility, because A) you don't have to travel somewhere to describe it accurately, then or now; B) there's no other evidence that Shakespeare left Stratford or London at all, and I believe he was too content in London with his other money-making ventures to do so; C) I frankly don't think he was interested in traveling, or in much else for that matter, besides his life in London and his minor time with his family; D) Shakespeare dropped Wriothesley like a "dishclout" when the theatres opened back up, and never referred to him again for any reason. They just don't seem that close; and E) Shakespeare messed up quite a bit about Italy. For example, he twice referred to landlocked cities, like Mantua, as ports, where ships came and went freely. Oh, and F) He lived in London, where you might imagine he knew some people who had traveled to Italy, and elsewhere. He was the favorite of Elizabeth and James, after all. If he knew queens and kings (James especially), then he probably knew less important people who traveled. And G) Shakespeare read a lot. You can get accurate geographical information, then and now, from books. But, anyway, an interesting thought I hadn't considered before.
At any rate, this book provides a smooth, easy-reading primer about his time, his plays, his daily life, his wealth (which was extensive; he made about 500 pounds a year, for 15-20 years, when most families survived on 5. He made more money as part owner of the Globe, and as a real-estate holder and landlord, then he ever did by the actual writing.) his friends, the diseases, his London, and just about everything you need to know to know anything about him as an actual person.
Overall this was a pleasure to read, mostly because it really grounds him in his own time. It does so in 101 very short chapters. So read this, and then if you're in for more, read books about Shakespeare by Harold Bloom (The Invention of the Human is a must-read), by Anthony Burgess and by Bill Bryson, just to name a few. Oh, and Michael Wood's book was excellent, too. So start here as a foundation, then build up with the other writers.
The one thing in this book I didn't know relates to what Shakespeare may have been doing between 1585 to 1592, or so. Perhaps a teaching position? Why not? A will, left by one Alexander Houghton, mentions a tutor named "William Shakeshafte" who had "connections to the theatre." But that's not his name, you say. But it is, in a way. Shakespeare himself was "Shakspere" on his baptismal certificate; "Shagspere" on his marriage bond; and "Shackspeare" in his will. His 6 surviving signatures all say something different. You would think that a man would know how to spell his own name, right? But Shakespeare--who never spelled it like I just did--didn't seem to care. And nobody else did, either. And since clerks of the time could spell as well as the general populace (which means, not so well), and since in his day, someone in Shakespeare's world would have heard him say "Shack-spur," and since nobody gave a damn how someone referred to himself, it is possible. And, besides Shakespeare's brother (for a couple of years), how many Shakespeares could be in the London theatre world between 1590 and 1595, when this will was written? And, by the way, is it possible that William Wriothesley, Shakespeare's patron during the Plague years of the mid-1590s, took him to Italy with him? Wriothesley was known to travel there a lot, and more of Shakespeare's plays take place in Italy than anywhere else. I'm going to say No to this possibility, because A) you don't have to travel somewhere to describe it accurately, then or now; B) there's no other evidence that Shakespeare left Stratford or London at all, and I believe he was too content in London with his other money-making ventures to do so; C) I frankly don't think he was interested in traveling, or in much else for that matter, besides his life in London and his minor time with his family; D) Shakespeare dropped Wriothesley like a "dishclout" when the theatres opened back up, and never referred to him again for any reason. They just don't seem that close; and E) Shakespeare messed up quite a bit about Italy. For example, he twice referred to landlocked cities, like Mantua, as ports, where ships came and went freely. Oh, and F) He lived in London, where you might imagine he knew some people who had traveled to Italy, and elsewhere. He was the favorite of Elizabeth and James, after all. If he knew queens and kings (James especially), then he probably knew less important people who traveled. And G) Shakespeare read a lot. You can get accurate geographical information, then and now, from books. But, anyway, an interesting thought I hadn't considered before.
At any rate, this book provides a smooth, easy-reading primer about his time, his plays, his daily life, his wealth (which was extensive; he made about 500 pounds a year, for 15-20 years, when most families survived on 5. He made more money as part owner of the Globe, and as a real-estate holder and landlord, then he ever did by the actual writing.) his friends, the diseases, his London, and just about everything you need to know to know anything about him as an actual person.
Overall this was a pleasure to read, mostly because it really grounds him in his own time. It does so in 101 very short chapters. So read this, and then if you're in for more, read books about Shakespeare by Harold Bloom (The Invention of the Human is a must-read), by Anthony Burgess and by Bill Bryson, just to name a few. Oh, and Michael Wood's book was excellent, too. So start here as a foundation, then build up with the other writers.
December 11, 2013
A wonderful little gem, that did actually tell me things I didn't know. It's a mix of family history, pop culture, a primer in Elizabethan times, discussion of theater's place, talk about the plague, politics, censorship and poetry.
It does not try to fill in the blanks for the lost years or enter into lengthy debates about disputed topics e.g. the identity of the dark lady. As many bullet point style books, it is sometimes repetitive and annoying when it refers you to another place in the book. But otherwise the structure is well laid out. A good source to stimulate further reading.
It does not try to fill in the blanks for the lost years or enter into lengthy debates about disputed topics e.g. the identity of the dark lady. As many bullet point style books, it is sometimes repetitive and annoying when it refers you to another place in the book. But otherwise the structure is well laid out. A good source to stimulate further reading.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews