Shakespeare and His Authors
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle .
Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||||
 Trade In this Item for up to £4.35
Trade in Shakespeare and His Authors: Critical Perspectives on the Authorship Question for an Amazon.co.uk gift card of up to £4.35, which you can then spend on millions of items across the site. Plus, get an extra £5 when you trade in books worth £10 or more until June 30, 2012. Trade-in values may vary (terms apply). Find more products eligible for trade-in.
|
Frequently Bought Together
Product details
|
Product Description
Review
... the contributions are both scholarly and lucid; the highly accessible prose in which most of the essays are written ensures that this volume will be an enjoyable read for a broad audience, which includes both academics, theatre practitioners, and those with a non-professional interest in Shakespeare.
Product Description
This is a collection of essays by major international literary and cultural critics on the Shakespeare authorship question and controversy. "The Shakespeare Authorship" question - the question of who wrote Shakespeare's plays and who the man we know as Shakespeare was - is a subject which fascinates millions of people the world over and can be seen as a major cultural phenomenon. However, much discussion of the question exists on the very margins of academia, deemed by most Shakespearean academics as unimportant or, indeed, of interest only to conspiracy theorists. Yet, many academics find the Authorship question interesting and worthy of analysis in theoretical and philosophical terms. This collection brings together leading literary and cultural critics to explore the Authorship question as a social, cultural and even theological phenomenon and consider it in all its rich diversity and significance.
Inside This Book
(Learn More)
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
6 of 7 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
Dr. Leahy's book is a collection of essays from professional scholars with university posts that, as Professor Martin Coyle of Cardiff University states, `reopens the seminal question of Shakespeare's authorship, offering new perspectives and fresh challenges to our understanding of the whole Shakespeare author debate' and calls it `invigorating'.
What you *won't* find in this collection of thoughtful essays are any disputations on particular candidates -- on why Bacon or Marlowe or Oxford or Mary Sidney wrote the works of Shakespeare. This book is not about who wrote Shakespeare, but about the very question itself. It asks why do we care, why do we have this issue, why is this issue not going away, what are the facts, why do we have such a need for biography. Thoughts from Freud and Derrida and Foucault and Barthes thread throughout the questions and ideas, creating more questions and ideas for readers.
Andrew Bennett of the University of Bristol considers the Shakespeare authorship question in relation to the romantic ideology of the author and argues that the authorship question is inherent in such an ideology; Willy Maley of the University of Glasgow ponders the nature of the authorship question from the perspective of a newcomer and finds himself pondering the significance of the proper name in any consideration of Shakespeare; William Rubenstein of the University of Aberystwyth offers a historian's perspective on the issue, pondering the lack of a historical methodology when considering Shakespeare's life; Nicholas Royle from the University of Sussex places Freud in this field of study and examines the discomfort felt by his followers in his belief that Shakespeare did not write the works attributed to him; Sean Gaston of Brunel University continues in this vein and considers the theological dimensions of the authorship question; Graham Holderness of the University of Hertfordshire examines a particular biography of Shakespeare and demonstrates that it is as much about the author of the work (Stephen Greenblatt) as it is about Shakespeare; Sandra Schruijer, Professor of Organization Sciences at the University of Utrecht argues that the various groups interested in the Shakespeare authorship question demonstrate the traditional characteristics of groups in conflict and outlines a way ahead in order to defuse this conflict; William Leahy, also of Brunel University writes on the `Shakinomics' of the undermining of traditional authority and the need to `open source' Shakespearean biography. The book ends with two interviews; one with Mark Rylance, former Artistic Director of the Globe Theatre, London who is a `doubter' and the second with Dominic Dromgoole, current Artistic Director of the Globe Theatre, who isn't.
This book is valuable as the first scholarly look at the contentious authorship debate, and it provides, as Professor Michael Bristol states, `a more respectful engagement with questions and intuitions that remain widely prevalent in the popular imagination'. Anyone interested in a civil, erudite discussion of Shakespeare's authorship will find this book enlightening and inspiring.
What you *won't* find in this collection of thoughtful essays are any disputations on particular candidates -- on why Bacon or Marlowe or Oxford or Mary Sidney wrote the works of Shakespeare. This book is not about who wrote Shakespeare, but about the very question itself. It asks why do we care, why do we have this issue, why is this issue not going away, what are the facts, why do we have such a need for biography. Thoughts from Freud and Derrida and Foucault and Barthes thread throughout the questions and ideas, creating more questions and ideas for readers.
Andrew Bennett of the University of Bristol considers the Shakespeare authorship question in relation to the romantic ideology of the author and argues that the authorship question is inherent in such an ideology; Willy Maley of the University of Glasgow ponders the nature of the authorship question from the perspective of a newcomer and finds himself pondering the significance of the proper name in any consideration of Shakespeare; William Rubenstein of the University of Aberystwyth offers a historian's perspective on the issue, pondering the lack of a historical methodology when considering Shakespeare's life; Nicholas Royle from the University of Sussex places Freud in this field of study and examines the discomfort felt by his followers in his belief that Shakespeare did not write the works attributed to him; Sean Gaston of Brunel University continues in this vein and considers the theological dimensions of the authorship question; Graham Holderness of the University of Hertfordshire examines a particular biography of Shakespeare and demonstrates that it is as much about the author of the work (Stephen Greenblatt) as it is about Shakespeare; Sandra Schruijer, Professor of Organization Sciences at the University of Utrecht argues that the various groups interested in the Shakespeare authorship question demonstrate the traditional characteristics of groups in conflict and outlines a way ahead in order to defuse this conflict; William Leahy, also of Brunel University writes on the `Shakinomics' of the undermining of traditional authority and the need to `open source' Shakespearean biography. The book ends with two interviews; one with Mark Rylance, former Artistic Director of the Globe Theatre, London who is a `doubter' and the second with Dominic Dromgoole, current Artistic Director of the Globe Theatre, who isn't.
This book is valuable as the first scholarly look at the contentious authorship debate, and it provides, as Professor Michael Bristol states, `a more respectful engagement with questions and intuitions that remain widely prevalent in the popular imagination'. Anyone interested in a civil, erudite discussion of Shakespeare's authorship will find this book enlightening and inspiring.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
2 reviews
9 of 9 people found the following review helpful
The first scholarly look at the authorship question
2 Aug 2010
Format:Paperback
Dr. Leahy's book is a collection of essays from professional scholars with university posts that, as Professor Martin Coyle of Cardiff University states, `reopens the seminal question of Shakespeare's authorship, offering new perspectives and fresh challenges to our understanding of the whole Shakespeare author debate' and calls it `invigorating'.
What you *won't* find in this collection of thoughtful essays are any disputations on particular candidates -- on why Bacon or Marlowe or Oxford or Mary Sidney wrote the works of Shakespeare. This book is not about who wrote Shakespeare, but about the very question itself. It asks why do we care, why do we have this issue, why is this issue not going away, what are the facts, why do we have such a need for biography. Thoughts from Freud and Derrida and Foucault and Barthes thread throughout the questions and ideas, creating more questions and ideas for readers.
Andrew Bennett of the University of Bristol considers the Shakespeare authorship question in relation to the romantic ideology of the author and argues that the authorship question is inherent in such an ideology; Willy Maley of the University of Glasgow ponders the nature of the authorship question from the perspective of a newcomer and finds himself pondering the significance of the proper name in any consideration of Shakespeare; William Rubenstein of the University of Aberystwyth offers a historian's perspective on the issue, pondering the lack of a historical methodology when considering Shakespeare's life; Nicholas Royle from the University of Sussex places Freud in this field of study and examines the discomfort felt by his followers in his belief that Shakespeare did not write the works attributed to him; Sean Gaston of Brunel University continues in this vein and considers the theological dimensions of the authorship question; Graham Holderness of the University of Hertfordshire examines a particular biography of Shakespeare and demonstrates that it is as much about the author of the work (Stephen Greenblatt) as it is about Shakespeare; Sandra Schruijer, Professor of Organization Sciences at the University of Utrecht argues that the various groups interested in the Shakespeare authorship question demonstrate the traditional characteristics of groups in conflict and outlines a way ahead in order to defuse this conflict; William Leahy, also of Brunel University writes on the `Shakinomics' of the undermining of traditional authority and the need to `open source' Shakespearean biography. The book ends with two interviews; one with Mark Rylance, former Artistic Director of the Globe Theatre, London who is a `doubter' and the second with Dominic Dromgoole, current Artistic Director of the Globe Theatre, who isn't.
This book is valuable as the first scholarly look at the contentious authorship debate, and it provides, as Professor Michael Bristol states, `a more respectful engagement with questions and intuitions that remain widely prevalent in the popular imagination'. Anyone interested in a civil, erudite discussion of Shakespeare's authorship will find this book enlightening and inspiring.
What you *won't* find in this collection of thoughtful essays are any disputations on particular candidates -- on why Bacon or Marlowe or Oxford or Mary Sidney wrote the works of Shakespeare. This book is not about who wrote Shakespeare, but about the very question itself. It asks why do we care, why do we have this issue, why is this issue not going away, what are the facts, why do we have such a need for biography. Thoughts from Freud and Derrida and Foucault and Barthes thread throughout the questions and ideas, creating more questions and ideas for readers.
Andrew Bennett of the University of Bristol considers the Shakespeare authorship question in relation to the romantic ideology of the author and argues that the authorship question is inherent in such an ideology; Willy Maley of the University of Glasgow ponders the nature of the authorship question from the perspective of a newcomer and finds himself pondering the significance of the proper name in any consideration of Shakespeare; William Rubenstein of the University of Aberystwyth offers a historian's perspective on the issue, pondering the lack of a historical methodology when considering Shakespeare's life; Nicholas Royle from the University of Sussex places Freud in this field of study and examines the discomfort felt by his followers in his belief that Shakespeare did not write the works attributed to him; Sean Gaston of Brunel University continues in this vein and considers the theological dimensions of the authorship question; Graham Holderness of the University of Hertfordshire examines a particular biography of Shakespeare and demonstrates that it is as much about the author of the work (Stephen Greenblatt) as it is about Shakespeare; Sandra Schruijer, Professor of Organization Sciences at the University of Utrecht argues that the various groups interested in the Shakespeare authorship question demonstrate the traditional characteristics of groups in conflict and outlines a way ahead in order to defuse this conflict; William Leahy, also of Brunel University writes on the `Shakinomics' of the undermining of traditional authority and the need to `open source' Shakespearean biography. The book ends with two interviews; one with Mark Rylance, former Artistic Director of the Globe Theatre, London who is a `doubter' and the second with Dominic Dromgoole, current Artistic Director of the Globe Theatre, who isn't.
This book is valuable as the first scholarly look at the contentious authorship debate, and it provides, as Professor Michael Bristol states, `a more respectful engagement with questions and intuitions that remain widely prevalent in the popular imagination'. Anyone interested in a civil, erudite discussion of Shakespeare's authorship will find this book enlightening and inspiring.
4 of 5 people found the following review helpful
Scholars Evade Edward de Vere's Authorship of the Works of "Shakespeare"
19 Sep 2011
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
William Leahy begins his introduction with an apt quip by the inimitable Mark Twain: "It is not what we don't know that troubles us, it is what we know but isn't so" (1). Leahy uses Twain to challenge the "taboo" in the Shakespearean community against discussing alternative theories as to the authorship of Shakespeare's works. Leahy writes that he merely wants to legitimize the authorship debate for academia, "not in any way... to suggest that someone other than Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to him" (6). His goal as editor was far too modest. Six of his contributors imply the authorship question is not in fact worthy of any serious consideration. Yet this is the very blind spot that has stymied effective scholarship on connections between the Shakespearean canon and its actual author. Through copious use of projection, anti-Oxfordians convince themselves that they approach the authorship question with the cold detachment of the serious scientist, whereas authorship heretics are the only ones who have preconceptions and emotional investment in their authorship opinions.
In his chapter, William Rubinstein reminds us that Shakespeare is the only significant Elizabethan author who lacks any "contemporary sources which unequivocally state that he was a writer... [even though] he is probably the most intensively studied and researched human being in history" (45-46).
In his fascinating interview with Leahy, the celebrated actor Mark Rylance emphasizes that his initial interest was not in the authorship question per se, but only in its implications for how he interpreted the Shakespeare characters that he played, especially Hamlet. "Aspects of the text, which were previously just decoration or theatrical filler in a Stratfordian interpretation, became clues to underlying meaning... these plays were a passionate revelation of a secret personal history, not just a commercial theatre writer's imagination. The potential for truthful human nature in the plays was greater and therefore the responsibility to be truthful in one's service of the plays greater. The humility of the author's mask was also thought provoking" (143). Lines Rylance once dismissed as badly written now make him realize he simply did not understand them. Further, the play's characters "were not fantasy characters; they were drawn from real people around the author's life. They demonstrate huge knowledge and close observation, as well as imagination" (144).
Note that Rylance does not fall into the trap of James Shapiro's false dichotomy between life experience and imagination. (It was Shapiro who complained that a non-Stratfordian like Rylance was automatically disqualified to be Director of the Globe Theater, a position Rylance formerly held.) In rebutting the accusation that it would have been impossible to keep de Vere's authorship secret, Rylance cites the now well-known fact that the media colluded not to reveal President Kennedy's affairs during his lifetime. He might have added the classical precedent of the Eleusinian mysteries, whose many followers similarly guarded the still secret rituals of their cult.
I recommend Leahy's book, since he at least attempts to engage anti-Oxfordian Shakespeare scholars in a conversation.
Richard M. Waugaman, M.D.
Reader, Folger Shakespeare Library
www dot oxfreudian dot com
In his chapter, William Rubinstein reminds us that Shakespeare is the only significant Elizabethan author who lacks any "contemporary sources which unequivocally state that he was a writer... [even though] he is probably the most intensively studied and researched human being in history" (45-46).
In his fascinating interview with Leahy, the celebrated actor Mark Rylance emphasizes that his initial interest was not in the authorship question per se, but only in its implications for how he interpreted the Shakespeare characters that he played, especially Hamlet. "Aspects of the text, which were previously just decoration or theatrical filler in a Stratfordian interpretation, became clues to underlying meaning... these plays were a passionate revelation of a secret personal history, not just a commercial theatre writer's imagination. The potential for truthful human nature in the plays was greater and therefore the responsibility to be truthful in one's service of the plays greater. The humility of the author's mask was also thought provoking" (143). Lines Rylance once dismissed as badly written now make him realize he simply did not understand them. Further, the play's characters "were not fantasy characters; they were drawn from real people around the author's life. They demonstrate huge knowledge and close observation, as well as imagination" (144).
Note that Rylance does not fall into the trap of James Shapiro's false dichotomy between life experience and imagination. (It was Shapiro who complained that a non-Stratfordian like Rylance was automatically disqualified to be Director of the Globe Theater, a position Rylance formerly held.) In rebutting the accusation that it would have been impossible to keep de Vere's authorship secret, Rylance cites the now well-known fact that the media colluded not to reveal President Kennedy's affairs during his lifetime. He might have added the classical precedent of the Eleusinian mysteries, whose many followers similarly guarded the still secret rituals of their cult.
I recommend Leahy's book, since he at least attempts to engage anti-Oxfordian Shakespeare scholars in a conversation.
Richard M. Waugaman, M.D.
Reader, Folger Shakespeare Library
www dot oxfreudian dot com
Were these reviews helpful?
Let us know
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
|
