McShakespeare a book review of Contested Will by James Shapiro

On reading the prologue of Will Contested I prepared myself for truly researched history of the Shakespeare controversy. The last paragraph is a statement about the proper treatment of this tough subject but between the prologue and the last paragraph something else happened,
James Shapiro succeeded in writing an interesting book, informative in many ways, though lacking thoroughness. Only Dr Shapiro knows why he left out information but it is not hard to guess. I will describe later.
The dominant motive behind Will Contested was to make a stunning argument for the Shakespeare authorship and delivering it with shock and awe. Literary or military shock and awe is neither without fire power. The Stratford on Avon Shakespeare man regardless the colorful scenario Dr Shapiro places him is as flat an Ayn Rand character (Ayn Rand is a great writer).
One cannot create a three-dimensional character when the aim is a factual biography of a fictional character as its basis. A biography can be fictionalized but not the other way around.
Creating a fictional character who breaths and bleeds could be wonderful read but then old school scholars would have to give up the fantasy. However, a good fictional story would be better than what we have now. Stephen Greenblatt tried to find Shakespeares character in the plays in Will in the World.
After exhaustive research and painstaking analysis, and with clear devotion Dr Shapiro is apparently still perplexed by the doubters. I think he wonders why everyone isn't as passionate about his opinion as he is. This kind of fervor is effective in the classroom and with loyal followers but not for those who want the complete commonsense story. The doubters, for him, are like pesky mosquitoes for which one merely puts up netting to keep them out.
Dr Shapiro must be perplexed by the non-scholars who examine the same material as he and then arrive at the opposite conclusion. This is because the theories formulated in isolation without the vigor of testing and open examination makes them seem right. "Our Shakespeare" is a phrase that suggests the plays are mine and not yours. It seems that much more is possible in the ivory towers than the real world.
Who of those near him is going to tell him there are other conclusions.
There is a rather nasty innuendo going about that the doubters discriminate against the possibility that a poor commoner could be a creative genius. To be sure the author was a genius. The innuendo is a self gratifying smoke screen intended to put the doubters on the defensive and conceal the bigotry or self serving interests about a genius that really existed. The Shakespeare myth is a belief in miracles, not genius. Common sense, not Santa Clause.
Dr Shapiro believes that good fiction does not have to be autobiographical. I think he reads to much Steven King because the Shakespeare author would be as exceptional in a good way as Kings monsters are in a bad way.
Keep in mind that England's class system is rock solid and protecting ones fiefdom was often a class struggle. The history of dogma is history itself and Dr Shapiro by being so very sure of his thinking allies himself with the history of the powerful (who write the histories). The only winner here is confusion.
Prior to the internet Shakespeareans fought successfully to keep their story pure simply by ignoring information. Now they wage a strange war. It is a war against information so that the only safe haven for the Shakespeare myth is in the disinterest of the public, the bias of Shakespeare fans , the big cottage industry and financial interest of book producers.
I don't want to put anyone out of a job. I only want the truth. When the truth is accepted there will be tons of money to be made by some people.
Contested Will is condescending to some great thinkers in literature and psychology. Can one can claim to be a better judge of human nature than for example. Mark Twain and Sigmund Freud but not without risking the appearance of arrogance. Dr Shapiro arrogantly capitalizes on and attacks apparent character flaws that, to him, represents the flaw in the reasoning behind doubting.
Dr Shapiro treads on thin ice in highlighting the Della Bacon story considering the prejudices against women and the use of psychiatry in the suppression of desenters. The most troubling comment Dr Shapiro generalizes his comments about Freud in that Freud's claims, "like those of many others, it reveals more about the skeptic than it does about the authorship of Shakespeare's plays." Dr Shapiro applies this sentiment to every example.
It is an odd conclusion that since main stream publishers still accept and publish the same Shakespeare story decade after decade despite the information to the contrary the story must be true. The real story behind the Shakespeare is about power and influence.
Please don't tell me that publishers are guided by a vision of the truth and the education of their readership. I didn't fall of a turnip truck. I need not press this point.
Dr Shapiro's laughter at the deification of Shakespeare is interesting because deification is exactly what he does by adhering dogmatically to one conclusion. He finds the flaws in others that is guilty of. It's obvious that Shakspur is the author if you ignore and dismiss
If Dr Shapiro writes a novel equal to Huckleberry Finn I will listen to him intently or if he makes a contribution to psychology that shapes a century of self-knowledge I will be his disciple. Or if he goes head to head with Frederick Nietzsche I will wear the Shakespeare mask.
In the book I learned that Shakespeare had reached deity status in England as Stratford-on-Avon became a sell-able item. Here-in is the cause of the controversy. Religion and profit make for ruthless and blind bed fellows.
Here is a fun tid-bit. Go get your King James Bible and turn to Psalms 46 and count 46 words down and then go to the last word and count up 46 words. I will wait while you do that. .... Interesting, huh. There have been no claims that Shakespur wrote the Bible. Why?
Contested Will is a good title because a contest of wills is exactly what we have. Old school Shakspeareans are not logical. If the literary critics through the years were also our scientists we would still be living in caves.
I was surprised to read that Dr Shapiro felt compelled to bring up intellectual suppression in universities. He claims to be unaware of academic suppression but it has been a reality ever since there were teachers and students. Suppression can be overt or subtle and Dr Shapiro would be unaware of it maybe because he was cooperative without question or he is part of the problem.
In fact Contested Will gives a nice history of academic suppression by examining the Shakespeare controversy.
More than in other Shakespeare promotion books, Contested Will seems to heavily emphasize the enormous number of candidates for authorship with more flocking in daily. Why stress that idea except to suggest "Our Shakespeare" is distinctly separate from all the wannabes and don't mess with my stuff. Avoidance of common sense.
If reading Contested Will was my introduction to the controversy, I w0uld have wanted to know that the Stratford on Avon man died in 1616 and the 1623 folio was published in 1623(I know). Do you see a problem with the math? Case closed? Not. Shakespeare's friends saved the plays for publication posthumously? Really? Why? Were the English at that time in history any were different from norm? Those friends would have had the market and become rich by selling the portfolio. Human nature has not changed since Cro Magnon. Common sense says the author was still alive in 1623.
In addition, how is it that information about an event that happened after 1616 appeared in the 1623 plays? What does common sense say? Answer: The author was alive and writing in 1623 and Shakespeare is a myth.
How is it that the Oxford people think that even though DeVere, who had no friends and died in 1612 wrote the plays: Answer: DeVere is more of myth than Shakspur.
At least the Marlow people claim he didn't die but continued to write somewhere else. The Stratfordians just ignore everyone but themselves. It is moot what the Oxfordians say because De Vere died
He makes an incredable reference to Homer which I think is: If you reject Shakespeare you have to give up Homer too? Or was it that if you accept Pete Rose into the hall of fame you must accept Shoeless Joe Jackson? Dr Shapiro confuses me on this point.
Did Dr Shapiro mention the Promus? The Promus was Francis Bacon's notebook that contain references to the plays and actual lines from the plays? Not a peep from the Stratfordian but he is not alone. Of the three recent Stratfordian books I have reviewed none mentioned the Promus.
Why? Answer: Shakespeare is a pen name.
Did Dr Shapiro mention the Northumberland manuscript, a possession of Francis Bacon that has the name, Mr Francis William Shakespeare written on the front? No. Of the three recent Stratfordian books I have reviewed one mentioned the Northumberland Manuscript but failed to mention Bacon. A rather glaring omission.
Why? Answer: Shakespeare is a pen name.
Does it matter that Ben Jonson was equally glowing with Shakespeare and Bacon but wrote to Bacon about the good times together: "And oh, the men," he said. Ben knew both men, right? Shakespeare was gay.Why wouldn't Ben talk about the men with Shakespeare?
I'm not going to answer that one for you.
I could offer you many concrete examples of Shakespeare existing through Francis Bacon. The information is available on the internet and doesn't take much digging.
I do not aim to squash the pleasures of "mystery" because by recognizing the author we would be catapulted into literary blissful shock and awe.
I was interested to read a quote from Sigmond Freud although Freud believed in DeVere. "No single intelligence could have encompased such a literary and philosophical range; if Bacon had written the plays along with his great philosophical works, he, would have been the most powerful brain the world has ever produced." Well, it looks like that's what we have here. What a story.
Critics like James Shapiro find the old school packaged Shakespeare story charming because they find their own spin about the plays charming. The story they have fed the public for centuries is no different than the prepackaged assembly line stereotyped selling of name brands.
Stratfordian means McShakespeare.