Shakespeare: The World as Stage in “My Library [is] Dukedom Large Enough”

Find A Copy At

Group Discussions About This Book

No group discussions for this book yet.

What Members Thought

Mar 05, 2009 Andy rated it really liked it

This is actually more of a concise “un-biography” of William Shakespeare, because as Bill Bryson describes, we know almost nothing about Shakespeare’s life. We don't even know the correct spelling or pronounciation of Shakespeare's surname. What we do know about the man has been mined from scant public records (baptism and death certificates, court appearances) or inferred generally from our knowledge of life in Elizabethan England.

In Shakespeare, Bryson gives a nice survey of all of this (the a ...more

Like · see review

Mar 11, 2009 Lynne rated it it was ok

This is my first dip into the Bill Bryson pond, and I have to admit to being underwhelmed. Ultimately there is not too much new here, and I’m not a huge fan of the way that Bryson approaches his subject. Admittedly, as my buddy Andy called it, this is an "un-biography," but there is a lot that we do know about Shakespeare that is not simply conjecture. Bryson skims over the surface of most aspects of Shakespeare’s life and works; perhaps this is meant as an introduction to Shakespeare, sort of a This is my first dip into the Bill Bryson pond, and I have to admit to being underwhelmed. Ultimately there is not too much new here, and I’m not a huge fan of the way that Bryson approaches his subject. Admittedly, as my buddy Andy called it, this is an "un-biography," but there is a lot that we do know about Shakespeare that is not simply conjecture. Bryson skims over the surface of most aspects of Shakespeare’s life and works; perhaps this is meant as an introduction to Shakespeare, sort of a "Shakespeare for Dummies" for people who are unfamiliar with him. This would explain the lengthy and specific definition of a sonnet, something that should be completely unnecessary to anyone who is a fan of Shakespeare.

There are also VERY few footnotes or references here, which I actually find offensive as a scholar. Yes Bryson provides a reference list at the end, but this isn’t enough. On several occasions he overtly points out that some of his information is suspect, but most of the time he seems to expect us to take his words as gospel but doesn’t provide enough support for his conclusions. Furthermore, he seems to go out of his way to disrespect Stephen Greenblatt and a couple of other Shakespeare scholars (though he clearly LOVES Stanley Wells), and this seems quite galling to me. It’s a good thing he didn’t dare to diss Harold Bloom or he and I would have SERIOUS issues. You, Bryson, who seems to be a jack of all trades and master of none, have the audacity to question people who have made studying Shakespeare their life’s work? Pfffttt.

Sidenote: I do feel a bit guilty for judging Bryson so harshly after reading just one of his books, particularly one on my favorite writer because my love for Shakespeare knows no bounds. My bardolatry [as Ben Jonson wrote, “For I loved the man, and do honour his memory (on this side of idolatry) as much as any.”:] makes it difficult for me to read such a superficial treatment of him.

That said, though, I did learn a few things though they were mostly non-Shakespeare specific. I didn’t know that having blackened teeth was considered attractive during that time because it meant that you could afford plenty of sugar. In fact, if people’s teeth didn’t blacken naturally, they would often turn to artificial means “to show that they had their share of sugar, too” (55). I also learned that over twelve thousand words “entered the language between 1500 and 1650, about half of them still in use today, and old words were employed in ways that had not been tried before” (110-111). Phenomenal.

And Bryson’s final chapter definitely settled my ruffled feathers. It’s devoted to the utterly ridiculous argument about “Was Shakespeare Shakespeare,” and Bryson gives the various arguments that suggest that he wasn’t that commoner from Stratford the credence they deserve—none—and he does this in a patronizing fashion that I can really get behind. In fact, Bryson says, “nearly all of the anti-Shakespeare sentiment—actually all of it, every bit—involves manipulative scholarship or sweeping misstatements of fact” (182). Yes!

Furthermore, to cement at least parts of his scholarship into my good graces, Bryson suggests that “some of [Shakespeare’s:] plays may have been written to be read as well as performed” (163), and he provides a smidge of evidence, which is certainly enough to win over this reader who has been convinced of this very theory for years.

And so Bryson and I had a rough time of it—it was an up-and-down relationship—but everything ended satisfactorily. However, I’m not sure I’ll be reading any of his other works unless someone has a strong suggestion to do so.
...more

Like · see review

From the Bookshelf of “My Library [is] Dukedom Large Enough”…

Find A Copy At

Group Discussions About This Book

What Members Thought

“My Library [is] Dukedom Large Enough”