30 Great Myths about Shakespeare

If you are the kind of person, as I am, who can get excited about* how John Florio's 1603 translation of Montagne's essays widened Shakespeare's vocabulary;* or find it fascinating that acting companies bought costumes from servants who inherited them from their aristocratic masters (but were legally prohibited from wearing them, because the law specified the kinds of clothing people of each social class could wear);* or find it a revelation that there is actually a reason why Shakespeare gave Bohemia a seacoast in Twelfth Night;* or would like to entertain the possibility that Shakespeare was neither Protestant nor Catholic but atheist ("Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow ...")* or did not know that the proscenium stage, which differed from Shakespeare's thrust stage, was something brought back to London by aristocrats exiled in Paris during the English civil war;* or discovered that one of the most beautiful lines in Shakespeare: "Golden lads and girls all must / like chimney sweepers come to dust" does not refer to little boys who sweep chimneys, but to a dandelion flower (a dandelion was called a "chimney-sweeper" in Shakespeare's rural dialect);* or was unaware that just as Shakespeare's Globe was built away from the jurisdiction of the London Puritans, Hollywood was built close to Mexico so filmmakers could flee American puritans if necessary;* or that the mention in Twelfth Night of a specific hotel was perhaps an early example of a "product placement":* or that the belief that performances of Macbeth were jinxed is due to a hoax perpetrated by Max Beerbohm in 1898, and only exposed in 2001;* that the reason there is no Queen Lear, Duchess Prospero, Frederick or Senior may have to do with a lack of boy actors to play all the female roles;--then then this is the book for you.I particularly liked a discussion of films of Shakespeare's plays, how they differ from dramatic performances and why. I noted the ones I had not seen and went to Netflix, Amazon and the public library to get them.There is also material about different approaches to the stage versions of the plays. This book is worth reading if for nothing else than the deadpan quotation from satirical reviews of Peter O'Toole's 1980 production of Macbeth. These will bring tears of laughter to your eyes.These essays are immensely learned, well-written and fascinating. They cull information from the vast Shakespeare literature and package it in small essays. The idea that they are meant to refute "myths" is a hook to hang the essays from. This will cause no harm unless the cute title makes someone think that these essays are lightweight, which they are not.The bibliography led me to order certain other books on Shakespeare which I have not read yet.Apparently, one publication on Shakespeare appears every hour. When it comes to Shakespeare, it is difficult to know which books to read, but my advice is to give preference to this book.

Maguire and Smith do a good job of complicating many "Myths" around Shakespeare--although it is important to note that many of the "myths" aren't factual statements, but more general sentiments about the author. While Maguire and Smith do some outright debunking, most of what is done is just "complicating" the "myth" because it was based on out-dated scholarship, Victorian or early 20th century theoretical concerns, or just cliches. In the end, while Maguire and Smith are perfectly readable while being very scholarly from entry-to-entry, the book still feels uneven. The essay on Shakespeare's authorship won't change most opinions nor does it have space to do so: that task requires a book-length treatment. Other topics, such as the relationship of "Shakespeare" to film, either need to be books or they need to be shortened, but the essay is just long enough to be tedious without being exhaustive. Furthermore, on Shakespeare's class concerns or his Catholicity, Maguire and Smith do not earn their outright dismissal with enough evidence to completely undo what are, to many including me, fairly sound arguments. Despite those concerns, these is an interesting book and an enjoyable read filled with facts and "complications."

A contribution towards the current(and tedious) authorship debate backlash from diverse Shakespeare academics who bellow for revenge and have decided to quarrel in print against the looneys who contest that it was Shakespeare wot wrote the plays one feels.Mythology in its widest measure comprising malicious fabrication to educated speculation that has gained a patina of concrete verity through constant repetition that generally debunk Baldy Bill as the Sweet Swan of Avon.Well, someone had to do it (again) notwithstanding that the daftest of people and actors - most of whom are horribly unqualified to offer opinion - are normally best denied the oxygen of publicity they get from constant battering at and undermining of their crazy theories by the cleansing poison of fact.But it's a thankless task only justified by the adage that all that evil needs to succeed is that good (wo)men do nothing.Maguire and Smith (folk of Oxford)do veer towards a tour d'horizon of those stories about the Bard weel kent by those who take the trouble to widely read about the topic and by those who don't. It's an honourable task competently and entertainingly executed. It won't change anything but there's the comfort of revisiting all those winter tales and rough magic you've heard before. But why only thirty? Reason not the need.

You'll probably learn trivia that you didn't know. You'll also learn that Shakespeare wasn't a Catholic, when scholars of at least equal distinction to the two authors of this book are quite certain that he was. So much for "myths"! I don't care either way. Of course there's a good deal of rubbish speculation, for example about books which influenced Shakespeare's vocabulary when it's perfectly possible that the debt ran in the other direction (Shakespeare's vocabulary would otherwise have been so poor, you see). There are much better things on the subject. I mean, there must be, surely, mustn't there?

Superb short and incredibly informative book. Excellently written.Brilliant further reading information. Wonderful book for all interested in the bard.Very highly recommended.

As a tutor of English, Billy Boy especially, I thought I knew it all. How wrong I was. I recommend this to all teachers and students of English literature.

Fascinating look at the stories that have grown up about Shakespeare. Informative for both experts and newcomers to Shakespeare. Great!

An enjoyable, if limited, romp through thirty diverse "issues" that are commonly raised when Shakespeare's name is spoken. "Myth" is used in a rather loose sense, the difficulty being that any term like myth (or "issues"!) is bound to be problematic. There could have been more tales and there could have been less. Thirty will do.It is difficult to define the audience for this book as it must have been in pitching the level of its content between the academic and those who for the most part are capable of nothing but inexplicable dumb-shows and noise. Those who know even a smidgen about Shakespeare are well accustomed, when the man's name arises, to be goaded by assertions that he was a plagiarist, a poof, a papist, a fraud, a misogynist, a poacher, a peasant, a profiteer, a genius, a fornicator, a miser, or an all-round great guy.All we really know is that he was human, with the attributes associated with the species.This is the thrust to be extracted from this book.There's a move afoot - not before time some might say - by the "Stratfordians" to kick some ass, having put up with the outrageous slings and arrows of the "anti-Stratfordians" for far too long. This little book appears to be in the former camp. Written by two respected academics in the field it's a lightweight welcome addition to the fray.Personally, I'd like to see Maguire and Smith champion the cause to the uttermost and go full tilt for a heavyweight tome on this general topic of what's bin did and what's been hid about Shakespeare.Meanwhile, when some dinner-party neighbour smugly asserts through folded arms before the dessert "Shakespeare didn't write those plays, you know" I'll respond with my usual counter, "Really! How very interesting. You know, you should really write a book about that" while recommending having a look at this one. It'll do nicely.