13 of 22 people found the following review helpful
Shakespeare Beyond Doubt?,
Amazon Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Shakespeare Beyond Doubt? -- Exposing an Industry in Denial (Paperback)
This is an excellent book and does exactly what it claims, i.e. it exposes the weakness of the Stratfordians' claims. If you are new to this subject, or if you have already done a bit of research, (or a lot!) this book is a must. It puts the case for doubting that William Shakspere, the glover's son from Stratford-upon- Avon, was the author of the works of William Shakespeare, clearly and eruditely. Read also 'Shakespeare Beyond Doubt,' edited by Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells. (To suggest that the similarity in title is to fool the gullible, as a previous reviewer has, is childish, and to suggest that readers of these books would be fooled is condescending to say the least!) Compare both books. Edmondson and Wells begin with a gross insult by referring to doubters as anti-Shakespeareans. All doubters, in my experience, love Shakespeare; but you can see what they are doing. This is one of their ploys, to deliberately muddy the waters by making no distinction between 'Shakespeare' and 'Shakspere,' when it has been shown 'beyond doubt' that the Stratford man always used 'Shakspere' or, occasionally, a close variant; never 'Shakespeare,' whereas when the name started to appear on the plays it was always 'Shakespeare' or 'Shake-speare, not once did it appear as 'Shakspere.' This is just one of their tricks. Another is to suggest, which they do often, that all doubters are snobs, not willing to believe that a 'common' person could write the plays and poems. This is utter nonsense, of course. These, and other underhand Stratfordian tactics are exposed in 'Shakespeare Beyond Doubt?' Notice how the Edmondson/Wells book never answers the really important questions. These are discussed lucidly in the Shahan/Waugh book. Buy it; read it. Make up your own mind!
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-1 of 1 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 9 Mar 2014 20:51:20 GMT
Last edited by the author on 9 Mar 2014 20:55:39 GMT
Donald Bain says:
t there are weaknesses in the "official" version is hardly surprising. Not only are such gaps and confusions commonplace in historical record (which in any case is hostage to interpretation) but they add to the credibility of it. It's a balance of probabilities and reality is a confusion not a series of complex conspiracies. Didn't Mark Twain say" if you've read two witness statements about a train crash you start to worry about history!"
The calumny that Stratfordians peddle a mythology to maintain some sort of cash cow could be equally levelled at some of the so-called alternative conspiracy theorists. It doesn't advance the argument much and merely provides annoyingly infantile grist in ill-mannered conduct. If the question is to be Will or not to be Will the debate would benefit from acceptance that both circumstances have yet to ravel up the sleeve of uncertainties conclusively or accept that there will always be the unexplained. Exposing these for what they are and seeking discussion as to all possible influences while accepting that there always will be untidy patches that probably will defy resolution is a consummation to be desired rather than engaging in slanging matches. It does the general cause harm I believe.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›