Rhapsodic, and extremely well done. There ought to be a rasa (the Sanskrit sort, not the Latin) for the perfect simultaneous deployment of snark in the critical deconstruction of a bad argument, and this ought to be the sort of example that some student is asked to emulate to master the form. Best of luck with grad school, should it happen!
This was an enjoyable read. It was unfortunate that Winkler did not interview any researching and writing Baconians. She presented Mark Rylance not as a Baconian per se but as a Shakespeare authorship doubter who preferred to stay neutral, as well as a proponent for investigation into whether or not Shakespeare was a woman--although she did quote him in the book as saying he saw Francis Bacon's philosophy reflected in the Shakespeare plays. He has since joined the Francis Bacon Society, in honor of the First Folio's first four hundred years. For the most part, Winkler treated the case for Francis Bacon as if it were of historical anecdotal interest only. She barely mentioned current Baconian proponents Peter Dawkins, author of "The Shakespeare Enigma" (London: Polair, 2004), "Second Seeing Shakespeare," (e-book, 2020), et al., founder/principal of the Francis Bacon Research Trust, and Barry Clarke, author of "Francis Bacon's Contribution to Shakespeare (New York: Routledge, 2019), in which he advocates for a multiple-author theory based on stylistics. She did not seem to be aware of British barrister N. B. Cockburn (1998, second edition forthcoming by the The Francis Bacon Society), Brian McClinton, "The Shakespeare Conspiracies," 2d ed. (Belfast, Shanway Press, 2008); A. Phoenix (see academia dot edu, The Francis Bacon Society, SirBacon.org), or any other current Baconian writer. To get at the objective truth requires an objective approach and a bit of humility, for there is much to learn. With this I agree with MSC.
Great review! I would praise you publicly, but certain clues give away the fact that this piece was actually written by the Earl of Oxford’s wife. Nice try.
"she wouldn’t be the first intelligent professional to delve into authorship theories for the first time, think “wow!”, and jump headlong into Dunning-Kruger trough like it was a McDonald’s ball pit."
This is a fantastic turn of phrase, but more importantly: Your childhood McDonald's had a ball pit?! Why was I deprived of this?
Do you mind if I ask a bit more about your last sentence? Do you mean dismissing him as a possible guy who might have been involved in collaboration/vanity projects with the theatre, or as a fully-fledged secret ghostwriter candidate for the works of Shakespeare a la Oxford?
The ties between Shakes, Derby's family, and Strange's Men seem to have crumbled in 1593-4. Not sure if they ever were close again. Derby had his own minor troupe of actors, Derby's Men
tangentially related to the final section: I'm rereading WCW's Spring and All (perhaps you're familiar?) and just arrived at the section touching on Shakespeare:
* * *
I am often diverted with a recital which I have made for myself concerning Shakespeare: he was a comparatively uninformed man, quite according to orthodox tradition, who lived from first to last a life of amusing regularity and simplicity, a house and a wife in the suburbs, delightful children, a girl at court (whom he really never confused with his writing) and a café life which gave him with the freshness of discovery, the information upon which his imagination fed. London was full of the concentrates of science and adventure. He saw at "The Mermaid" everything he knew. He was not conspicuous there except for his spirits.
His form was presented to him by Marlow, his stories were the common talk of his associates or else some compiler set them before him. His types were particularly quickened with life about him.
Feeling the force of life, in his peculiar intelligence, the great dome of his head, he had no need of anything but writing material to relieve himself of his thoughts. His very lack of scientific training loosened his power. He was unencumbered.
For S. to pretend to knowledge would have been ridiculous—no escape there—but that he possessed knowledge, and extraordinary knowledge, of the affairs which concerned him, as they concerned the others about him, was self-apparent to him.
His actual power was PURELY of the imagination. Not permitted to speak as W.S., in fact peculiarly barred from speaking because of his lack of information, learning, not being able to rival his fellows in scientific training or adventure and at the same time being keen enough, imaginative enough, to know that there is no escape except in perfection, in excellence, in technical excellence—his buoyancy of imagination raised him NOT TO COPY them, not to holding the mirror up to them but to equal, to surpass them as a creator of knowledge, as a vigorous, living force above their heads.
His escape was not simulated but real. Hamlet no doubt was written about at the middle of his life.
He speaks authoritatively through invention, through characters, through design. The objects of his world were real to him because he could use them and use them with understanding to make his inventions—
I've never read Spring and All, but I'll check it out. I believe from the works that he was obviously someone whose mind was constantly absorbing and storing impressions and images, to say nothing of potential sources for cribbing plots and scenarios.
There's possible evidence that he may not have been a great socializer or "company keeper," though he also seems to have been genial with his core group of friends (Jonson, Burbage, Heminges and Condell, etc).
Me again. Like you, I hummed and ha'ad as to whether to reply to your review with my own, since I have read the book. In the end I decided yes, for the sake of balance, because it had a very different effect on me. Indeed, I feel that your review gives her entire book an almost sneering spin that is not necessarily there apart from in your eyes - which is of course fine, and you are entitled to see it that way. However, the way I see it, she takes the probem of the authorship question, and introduces it to the normal reader who wonders what on earth it's all about in a clear, objective, well-researched and at the same time entertaining way. If you had no idea why there was ever a question, well it shows you why; and gives you enough background so that if you approach the whole thing with an open mind, you can weigh up the evidence and decide for yourself where you stand. Or you can take your own research further if you are either unsettled, or intrigued. The paperback includes a full reading list for the curious and open minded. After all, there is no question about Dickens, Milton, Browning, Keats..and why not? Because there is clear paper evidence they wrote their works. There is nothing like that for the man from Stratford. Nor does the paper evidence we do have about the man in any way suggest he was a writer, or indeed educated to the level of education we see in the works. Even traditional scholars have commented on the yawning gap between the works and the man, and Sir Stanley Wells himself comments on how "cryptic" everything is with regard to the writer Shakespeare.
So there is indeed a question, and Elizabeth Winkler tackles it to my mind very well. I venture to suggest that belittling her work a "grift" comes perilously close to the nature of the attacks that characterise Stratfordian defence of their man, and illustrates the point that Winkler makes in the title, namely that to doubt to writer from Stratford is a form of heresy. I personally recommend the book for anyone who is curious, and they can see for themselves. The fact that it is climbing higher on the best seller lists at least means there are enough people out there willing to find out what it's all about. And if there is a dearth of negative reviews, as you yourself say in your introduction, I think that perhaps speaks volumes.
Thanks so much, and I'm glad you enjoyed the book. If you have a review on another site, feel free to link it; I'd love to check it out. I'll have to peruse the paperback and see how the book has changed between editions. I stand by my assessments of Winkler's tone and my decision to use the word grift; I felt they applied in this specific case.
I may write further on this topic, since a good deal of Winkler's book (as you point out) isn't devoted to a single candidate so much as explaining and promoting the idea that "there is a question," something that you also devote a lot of space towards in your comment. There's a lot of larger questions to explore via the Shakespeare authorship thing: How do questions get created? What is the societal consensus/social proof necessary for creating a "question"? I'm also interested in what "doubt" really is as an experience: e.g. can the mentality of skepticism, when deployed in a patterned way against one particular topic, really be compared to doubt (in the sense of uncertainty or ambivalence)?
I'd agree with you that the book is written for a "normal reader who wonders what on earth it's all about." One might even argue that its success depends on having such readers.
Hi, my only other review is a short one on Amazon, saying much the same thing as I wrote here. If you're interested in the question per se, and the philosophy surrounding it, as your various questions suggest, you might want to check out Michael Dudley's new book (2023) "The Shakespeare Authorship Question and Philosophy: Knowledge, Rhetoric, Identity" . It looks at the whole subject from a perspective of epistemology. It's one step removed from books like Winkler's which explain why there's a question, or other books which promote various candidates. Dudley also has a video summary/lecture of each chapter on YouTube. I find the videos a little confusing, but the book may be clearer. I haven't read it, but I've heard good things. I have heard Dudley talk on podcast interviews where he is addressing the average person, and his arguments are certainly clear in that context. It's good, and interesting, to have the topic approached from an external perspective.
One of the best things written on the authorship question in recent times. I particularly like your Gabriel Harvey find. You cannot engage in a mudbath without getting muddy. It is a shame that so much talent, wit and effort had to go into reviewing something as intellectually worthless as Winkler's book. I take comfort from your idea that the whole boat that Winkler is hoping to ride to fame and fortune is now sinking. In a few years SWAW (which I pronounce "swore") will be justly and entirely forgotten. Like all of its predecessors.
History counts Shakespeare of Stratford's authorship of the work that bears his name as a fact, not a theory. There are three pages of manuscript in his handwriting, canonical and authorial beyond doubt, in The British Library where Winkler, if ever she can be bothered to overcome the grubbiness of Kings Cross, can go and admire them. There's a simple Prima Facie Case linking Will to the First Folio which, like all other members of The Flat Shakespeare Society, Winkler has ignored. And if modern algorithmic stylometry can tease small bits of Marlowe out of Henry VI, it doesn't need to even bother with the likes of Oxford and Mary Sydney.
I suppose 'Shakespeare authorship' is the ideal subject for this sort of contrarianism - it matters enough that you can reliably make people angry (or at least annoyed), but not so much so that you need to worry about legal action, death threats, &c.
Yes, and it's convenient the defendant's dead. This whole 'debate' is pretty much a clique of contrarians forcing the world to watch their Cadaver Synod
No one is forcing anyone to do anything..not sure I follow. Nor do I understand why you would request people to subscribe or Oxfordians win. Either the man from Stratford did write the works, or he didn't. If he did, why get so worked up about those who suggest he didn't. Do you bother to argue with flat earthers? Will they also win?
Rhapsodic, and extremely well done. There ought to be a rasa (the Sanskrit sort, not the Latin) for the perfect simultaneous deployment of snark in the critical deconstruction of a bad argument, and this ought to be the sort of example that some student is asked to emulate to master the form. Best of luck with grad school, should it happen!
Thanks so much!! I really appreciate the encouragement, and I'm glad you liked it. Funny you mention rasa -- Oxford wrote the Natya Shastra, too.
This was an enjoyable read. It was unfortunate that Winkler did not interview any researching and writing Baconians. She presented Mark Rylance not as a Baconian per se but as a Shakespeare authorship doubter who preferred to stay neutral, as well as a proponent for investigation into whether or not Shakespeare was a woman--although she did quote him in the book as saying he saw Francis Bacon's philosophy reflected in the Shakespeare plays. He has since joined the Francis Bacon Society, in honor of the First Folio's first four hundred years. For the most part, Winkler treated the case for Francis Bacon as if it were of historical anecdotal interest only. She barely mentioned current Baconian proponents Peter Dawkins, author of "The Shakespeare Enigma" (London: Polair, 2004), "Second Seeing Shakespeare," (e-book, 2020), et al., founder/principal of the Francis Bacon Research Trust, and Barry Clarke, author of "Francis Bacon's Contribution to Shakespeare (New York: Routledge, 2019), in which he advocates for a multiple-author theory based on stylistics. She did not seem to be aware of British barrister N. B. Cockburn (1998, second edition forthcoming by the The Francis Bacon Society), Brian McClinton, "The Shakespeare Conspiracies," 2d ed. (Belfast, Shanway Press, 2008); A. Phoenix (see academia dot edu, The Francis Bacon Society, SirBacon.org), or any other current Baconian writer. To get at the objective truth requires an objective approach and a bit of humility, for there is much to learn. With this I agree with MSC.
Great review! I would praise you publicly, but certain clues give away the fact that this piece was actually written by the Earl of Oxford’s wife. Nice try.
"she wouldn’t be the first intelligent professional to delve into authorship theories for the first time, think “wow!”, and jump headlong into Dunning-Kruger trough like it was a McDonald’s ball pit."
This is a fantastic turn of phrase, but more importantly: Your childhood McDonald's had a ball pit?! Why was I deprived of this?
My dear sir, yours didn't??? It was part of the Playplace.
https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/4/4/18292466/ball-pit-history-playground-plyplce-soft-play
Derby was accused of writing plays for the common players. That does not make him Shakespeare, but it should be considered before dismissing him.
Do you mind if I ask a bit more about your last sentence? Do you mean dismissing him as a possible guy who might have been involved in collaboration/vanity projects with the theatre, or as a fully-fledged secret ghostwriter candidate for the works of Shakespeare a la Oxford?
The ties between Shakes, Derby's family, and Strange's Men seem to have crumbled in 1593-4. Not sure if they ever were close again. Derby had his own minor troupe of actors, Derby's Men
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3844095
a tour de force! even if the hors d'oeuvres pun gave me a nosebleed.
excellence usage of "cheugy" and a timely reminder that perhaps our institutions and cognoscenti are due for a re-dirtbagification.
Thanks! I appreciate, and I'm glad you noticed the captions!
tangentially related to the final section: I'm rereading WCW's Spring and All (perhaps you're familiar?) and just arrived at the section touching on Shakespeare:
* * *
I am often diverted with a recital which I have made for myself concerning Shakespeare: he was a comparatively uninformed man, quite according to orthodox tradition, who lived from first to last a life of amusing regularity and simplicity, a house and a wife in the suburbs, delightful children, a girl at court (whom he really never confused with his writing) and a café life which gave him with the freshness of discovery, the information upon which his imagination fed. London was full of the concentrates of science and adventure. He saw at "The Mermaid" everything he knew. He was not conspicuous there except for his spirits.
His form was presented to him by Marlow, his stories were the common talk of his associates or else some compiler set them before him. His types were particularly quickened with life about him.
Feeling the force of life, in his peculiar intelligence, the great dome of his head, he had no need of anything but writing material to relieve himself of his thoughts. His very lack of scientific training loosened his power. He was unencumbered.
For S. to pretend to knowledge would have been ridiculous—no escape there—but that he possessed knowledge, and extraordinary knowledge, of the affairs which concerned him, as they concerned the others about him, was self-apparent to him.
His actual power was PURELY of the imagination. Not permitted to speak as W.S., in fact peculiarly barred from speaking because of his lack of information, learning, not being able to rival his fellows in scientific training or adventure and at the same time being keen enough, imaginative enough, to know that there is no escape except in perfection, in excellence, in technical excellence—his buoyancy of imagination raised him NOT TO COPY them, not to holding the mirror up to them but to equal, to surpass them as a creator of knowledge, as a vigorous, living force above their heads.
His escape was not simulated but real. Hamlet no doubt was written about at the middle of his life.
He speaks authoritatively through invention, through characters, through design. The objects of his world were real to him because he could use them and use them with understanding to make his inventions—
ok wait one last thing: are you seeing King Lear at the Shed this fall?!?!
I've never read Spring and All, but I'll check it out. I believe from the works that he was obviously someone whose mind was constantly absorbing and storing impressions and images, to say nothing of potential sources for cribbing plots and scenarios.
There's possible evidence that he may not have been a great socializer or "company keeper," though he also seems to have been genial with his core group of friends (Jonson, Burbage, Heminges and Condell, etc).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/48559753
Agh! I may try to see it at the Shed; who knows. Theatre is more expensive in our time
Winkler’s book is very engaging and well reasoned. This screed? Not so much. Defensive, no? LOL
Cool; I welcome anyone from any camp to criticize it or weigh in.
Me again. Like you, I hummed and ha'ad as to whether to reply to your review with my own, since I have read the book. In the end I decided yes, for the sake of balance, because it had a very different effect on me. Indeed, I feel that your review gives her entire book an almost sneering spin that is not necessarily there apart from in your eyes - which is of course fine, and you are entitled to see it that way. However, the way I see it, she takes the probem of the authorship question, and introduces it to the normal reader who wonders what on earth it's all about in a clear, objective, well-researched and at the same time entertaining way. If you had no idea why there was ever a question, well it shows you why; and gives you enough background so that if you approach the whole thing with an open mind, you can weigh up the evidence and decide for yourself where you stand. Or you can take your own research further if you are either unsettled, or intrigued. The paperback includes a full reading list for the curious and open minded. After all, there is no question about Dickens, Milton, Browning, Keats..and why not? Because there is clear paper evidence they wrote their works. There is nothing like that for the man from Stratford. Nor does the paper evidence we do have about the man in any way suggest he was a writer, or indeed educated to the level of education we see in the works. Even traditional scholars have commented on the yawning gap between the works and the man, and Sir Stanley Wells himself comments on how "cryptic" everything is with regard to the writer Shakespeare.
So there is indeed a question, and Elizabeth Winkler tackles it to my mind very well. I venture to suggest that belittling her work a "grift" comes perilously close to the nature of the attacks that characterise Stratfordian defence of their man, and illustrates the point that Winkler makes in the title, namely that to doubt to writer from Stratford is a form of heresy. I personally recommend the book for anyone who is curious, and they can see for themselves. The fact that it is climbing higher on the best seller lists at least means there are enough people out there willing to find out what it's all about. And if there is a dearth of negative reviews, as you yourself say in your introduction, I think that perhaps speaks volumes.
Hi Janet,
Thanks so much, and I'm glad you enjoyed the book. If you have a review on another site, feel free to link it; I'd love to check it out. I'll have to peruse the paperback and see how the book has changed between editions. I stand by my assessments of Winkler's tone and my decision to use the word grift; I felt they applied in this specific case.
I may write further on this topic, since a good deal of Winkler's book (as you point out) isn't devoted to a single candidate so much as explaining and promoting the idea that "there is a question," something that you also devote a lot of space towards in your comment. There's a lot of larger questions to explore via the Shakespeare authorship thing: How do questions get created? What is the societal consensus/social proof necessary for creating a "question"? I'm also interested in what "doubt" really is as an experience: e.g. can the mentality of skepticism, when deployed in a patterned way against one particular topic, really be compared to doubt (in the sense of uncertainty or ambivalence)?
I'd agree with you that the book is written for a "normal reader who wonders what on earth it's all about." One might even argue that its success depends on having such readers.
Hi, my only other review is a short one on Amazon, saying much the same thing as I wrote here. If you're interested in the question per se, and the philosophy surrounding it, as your various questions suggest, you might want to check out Michael Dudley's new book (2023) "The Shakespeare Authorship Question and Philosophy: Knowledge, Rhetoric, Identity" . It looks at the whole subject from a perspective of epistemology. It's one step removed from books like Winkler's which explain why there's a question, or other books which promote various candidates. Dudley also has a video summary/lecture of each chapter on YouTube. I find the videos a little confusing, but the book may be clearer. I haven't read it, but I've heard good things. I have heard Dudley talk on podcast interviews where he is addressing the average person, and his arguments are certainly clear in that context. It's good, and interesting, to have the topic approached from an external perspective.
One of the best things written on the authorship question in recent times. I particularly like your Gabriel Harvey find. You cannot engage in a mudbath without getting muddy. It is a shame that so much talent, wit and effort had to go into reviewing something as intellectually worthless as Winkler's book. I take comfort from your idea that the whole boat that Winkler is hoping to ride to fame and fortune is now sinking. In a few years SWAW (which I pronounce "swore") will be justly and entirely forgotten. Like all of its predecessors.
History counts Shakespeare of Stratford's authorship of the work that bears his name as a fact, not a theory. There are three pages of manuscript in his handwriting, canonical and authorial beyond doubt, in The British Library where Winkler, if ever she can be bothered to overcome the grubbiness of Kings Cross, can go and admire them. There's a simple Prima Facie Case linking Will to the First Folio which, like all other members of The Flat Shakespeare Society, Winkler has ignored. And if modern algorithmic stylometry can tease small bits of Marlowe out of Henry VI, it doesn't need to even bother with the likes of Oxford and Mary Sydney.
Well done and thank you.
I suppose 'Shakespeare authorship' is the ideal subject for this sort of contrarianism - it matters enough that you can reliably make people angry (or at least annoyed), but not so much so that you need to worry about legal action, death threats, &c.
Yes, and it's convenient the defendant's dead. This whole 'debate' is pretty much a clique of contrarians forcing the world to watch their Cadaver Synod
No one is forcing anyone to do anything..not sure I follow. Nor do I understand why you would request people to subscribe or Oxfordians win. Either the man from Stratford did write the works, or he didn't. If he did, why get so worked up about those who suggest he didn't. Do you bother to argue with flat earthers? Will they also win?
Hi Janet -- don't worry! The subscribe button was a joke, referencing the "do __ or the terrorists win" meme from the bush era. It wasn't serious
Aha! Missed that reference...
The clever-clever barbs, the preening superiority, it all just feels so adolescent, or perhaps undergraduate.