The More They Talk the Better Bacon Looks

Book report for Bill Bryson's Shakespeare "When we reflect upon the works of William Shakespeare it is of course an amazement to consider that one man could have produced such a sumptuous, wise, varied, thrilling, ever delighting, body of work, but that is of course rhe hallmark of genius. Only one man had the circumstances and gifts to give us such incomparable works, and William Shakespeare was unquestionably that man --- whoever he was." As I read that last paragraph from Bill Bryson's "Shakespeare" I was prepared for anyone's name but William Shakespeare but there it was. In spite of that Bill Bryson's crisp, personal and descriptive style pacts information into few a pages better than anyone I know which makes him fun to read. BUT, Bill Bryson has put his fine talents on display for the benefit of Elizabethan life focusing on the Shagspur family. If he had included in his book all of the the historical and biographical information that is available "Shakespeare" would be a dynamite read. Why? Because in "Shakespeare" he restricts himself to a biography of someone who ranks with Santa Clause. I believe in Santa but I also understand he doesn't exist and I believe Bill Bryson is to honest and to much of a feet-on-the-ground kind of guy to believe in Santa, either (the Santa spirit not-with-standing). Rather than fill space with bits and pieces of information that Bill Bryson didn't bring up such as Shaqgspur's death before the plays were full and completed, I had rather focus of his attempt to write about a non existent person. Bill Bryson isn't alone in that error. Bill Bryson has a wonderful wit and doubtless enjoys writing and his style is light and fun except when he tries to drive home a point on one side of the Shakespeare Controversy. Then, he leaves his charming informative style and becomes a little mean spirited - like a mud slinging candidate running for office. I do not think he is a mean person and I don't think he enjoys betraying his own common sense to spout party line. Bill Bryson need only objectively read his own good commonsense observations. For example he says: "Facts are delible" and "For the rest, he is a kind of literary equivalent to an electron -- forever not there and not there," and "Others have simply surrendered themselves to imagination," and "The idea (of this book) is a simple one: to see how much of Shakespeare we really can know, really, from the record. Which is one reason, of course, it's so slender," and "Shakespeare it seems is not so much a historical figure as an academic obsession;" and "...his lost years , they are very lost indeed," etc. Well, one of his mistakes was assuming that an Italian town was too far from the sea to be a supplier of hemp for rope. Bryson's point was to weaken Bacon authorship. There is an abundance of information about the Shakespeare v Bacon on the internet - more than enough for us to make up our own minds and don't need campaign retoric. I say facts are indelible. Here is a point I enjoy making about Robert Green. "The Groats worth of Wit, Bought with a Million of Repentance." Can you recognize the schtick? He was the Don Rickles of the times. People weren't different from us. They enjoyed a good roast themselves. Read it and find out. Bill leaves out information in his Richard II story which goes like this. Some poor bloke copied the part of the play that challenged the divine right of kings and circulated it in a pamphlet and stupidly put his name on it though the playbill had no authors name. Well, The Queen was furious and wanted to torture the bloke before executing him. She also called Francis Bacon on the carpet about it. Francis had to think fast and talked her into reducing the charge to a felony. In the next production of Richard II William Shakespeare's name was right there but did the Queen drag William Shakespeare to the tower? No because he was no where to be found. She called Francis Bacon on the carpet again. Francis cleverly explained that William Shakespeare was guilty only of plagiarizing the anti-monarch material. She bought it though content wasn't plagiarized at all but the Queen didn't know that. It is likely that there was a wink wink understanding because she knew there was no such thing as a William Shakespeare. I have trouble with Bill Bryson concerning the sonnets for promoting the "knock-her-up-handsome-for-the child absurdity. This, I believe, is an example of how little real interest the public has in Shakespeare. I do not believe the author was a pedophile but that is the students get stuck with. My son's teacher said to work the meaning out for himself. What else is she going to say? First, no poet at any time was that squirrely. Second, people then were like us - except for King James who fondled boys while conducting business. One only need read the sonnets closely to know they were very specific about someone and a situation. Some are about the poet talking about himself in the third person. Many are about the poets mother, the Queen who would not publically acknowledge his existence. Some refer to his concealed father, Robert Dudley. Some refer to Robert Essex, his brother, who the poet thought mom liked best. I gotta tell you this story that Bill Bryson couldn't. Essex was half Elizabeth's age because he was her second born. Francis Bacon was her first born. It's in the British Record plus was discovered in Spanish archives in a letter from Dudley to King Philip asking him to pressure Elizabeth into going public for him. It was a tragedy waiting to happen. When Essex put on that little tantrum of a rebellion the Queen was so furious (she had a temper) she ordered him charged with treason and ordered Francis to prosecute. I wonder if Elizabeth thought Francis wouldn't do a good job. Francis couldn't not do a good job at anything and Essex was found guilty and his mother wouldn't prevent his beheading. It is said she wasn't the same afterward. Both her sons were constantly pressuring her to go public but if she did that Spain and France might have united and invaded. Tough times, those. Bill Bryson was smart enough not to mention the Northumberland Manuscript owned by Francis Bacon unlike Greenbratt who did did and who mentioned that Shakespeare's name was on it. He forgot to mention that both the names Shakespeare and Bacon are all over it - epecially the name Francis William Shakespeare. There are many more juicy stories that Bill Bryson could have told to make the Shakespeare story explode for decades but he was stuck with another repetitious political tract. Now, he even has an illustrated version of "Shakespeare." The attachment to an impossible-way-of-existing Shakespeare has deep and powerful roots and must have begun when the Virgin Queen had children and the people around her were forced to deny it. Long live the Queen. Greenblatt was quoted by the New York times as saying "... the process of writing the book (Will in the World) has made me respect that preposterous fantasy." The reporter had more to say: Can proponents of "intelligent design," or Holocaust denial, compile a list of supporters including the likes of Charles Dickens, Henry James, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman, Mark Twain, and all of the other outstanding doubters named in the Declaration?(for debunking the traditional Shakespeare). Can Professor Greenblatt compile such a list of supporters for his position that there is no room for doubt? We think not. I am afraid that Bill Bryson has taken that position.