Learn more Download now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn more Shop now Shop now Learn more Learn more Shop Kindle Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more



on 17 April 2016
I love Stanley Wells writing - acerbic, witty, insightful.
I've always been a staunch ally of the Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare school of thinking. Therefore, didn't need persuading. Will quote SW whenever I come across a sceptic in the future-especially in this 400th year since the great WS (see what I did there) demise.
review image
|0Comment|Report abuse
on 13 January 2016
A very straightforward and well written presentation of the facts.
|0Comment|Report abuse
on 22 May 2018
VG
|0Comment|Report abuse
on 9 January 2015
Very easy to read for a factual book and enjoyable too
One person found this helpful
|0Comment|Report abuse
on 24 January 2015
Of course Shakespeare was Shakespeare, the question is ; was Shakspere of Stratford, Shakespeare. The Stratfordians, since 1915, have consistently referred to the Stratford man as Shakespeare even though his name is not spelt that way in contemporary documents. Professor Wells makes his case fluently as one would expect but, not surprisingly, glosses over or ignores details which do not fit with his narrative. An enjoyable read which helps with the big question.
One person found this helpful
|11 Comment|Report abuse
on 6 May 2014
Having written a long thesis about Shakespeare and authorship Wells feels obliged to write a shorter version since various critics started again about authorship. Why can't the latter go and see them?
|0Comment|Report abuse
on 27 April 2014
There are far more facets to the doubters' case than Prof Wells acknowledges. This is too slight a work to provide an adequate rebuttal of that case, but it does not even attempt to give a fair summary of it. Mountains of circumstantial evidence that have been amassed are completely ignored, but of course, the silly old slur of "snobbery" features prominently. Prof Wells cannot countenance paradigm shift it seems and retaliates with stale and cheap jibes.
3 people found this helpful
|0Comment|Report abuse
on 3 April 2014
I have always been un convinced by the arguments put forth to say Shakespeare was actually another writer. I'm glad to see these arguments so roundly squashed. (Though I admit to the notion that some of the works attributed to Shakespeare alone may have been collaborations ... which were common at the time.)
4 people found this helpful
|0Comment|Report abuse
on 3 April 2014
Good debunking of the nutters, but could have explored why the nutters exist in the first place: WS's overblown reputation.
One person found this helpful
|0Comment|Report abuse
on 28 April 2014
Occam's Razor asserts that, in the absence of certainty, simplicity takes precedence over complication. In other words, until certain facts to the contrary can be presented, it makes no sense to imagine that Shakespeare did not write the plays which history has ascribed to him from the beginning. A collaboration early on does not invalidate this. The endless parade of cranks claiming the plays were written by others has been one of the most tiresome spectacles of my literary life. These theories belong in the dustbin along with Dan Brown, Velikovsky, John Michell and Ufology tracts. Congratulations to Stanley Wells for reiterating what we actually know and the implications of that: Shakespeare was the greatest writer who ever lived, so read and see his plays.
7 people found this helpful
|22 Comments|Report abuse

Need customer service? Click here