Will in the World” Validates Bacon’s Authorship

Shakespeare to the Limit – “Will in the World” validates Bacon’s authorship

11 12 2009

I have always been a tad suspicious of book reviews because in high school I had arbitrary motives for how I interwove the facts with my opinions. Like art arbitrariness is somewhat unavoidable but in this, my first book-review since high school, I aim to serve truth, common sense and credit accomplishment as well as mark errors.

Modern electronics has made this particular “Shakespeare to the Limit” possible because I don’t have time for library research. At my finger tips is information inaccessible by time and distance a few years ago. With the internet I can in single day separate truth from BS, have a day job and a family.

“Will in the World” by Stephen Greenblatt until a few years ago would not have been critiqued by the common man because the necessary information was stored in the libraries in rare collections. The Book of the Year and Pulitzer Prize finalist written by a Harvard professor would remain gospel without the internet.

Professor Greenblatt is unquestionably a good writer and scholar and thus when I read “Will in the World” I took it to be the last word on the subject. I thought he did an amazing job of squeezing the last drop of extrapolated data from the official record.

However, I was unable to rid myself of the feeling that William Shakespeare was the oddest duck I’ve ever known, a fellow who flew completely under the radar. That man, I said to my wife, was a superior ass who no one wanted to know or was an idiot savant who no one wanted to know.

I was also troubled about the ease in which Stephen Greenblatt assumed that Shagspur and Shake-speare was interchangeable with the name William Shakespeare. But, what-the-hell, Harvard professors must know what they are talking about.

Then, months later during a Mark Twain reading frenzy I happened upon “Shakespeare is Dead.” Mark Twain made good sense. I was intrigued by his logical conclusion that a man named Shakespeare could not have existed based on his knowledge of human nature. I began reading the plethora of material on the internet about the Shakespeare Conspiracy and guess what? Mark Twain – 1 and Stephen Greenblatt – 0

Stephen Greenblatt need not have tried so hard to create a William Shakespeare to make the point. That, though, isn’t so bad but he gets an F for leaving out easily accessible and relevant information the reader might want. For example, in the brief discussion of the Northumberland Manuscript a bundle of papers with important names found in 1867 in a musty box at Northumberland, Professor Greenblatt mentions only Shakespeare.

I need not describe the manuscript because one can easily find the original and detailed descriptions on the internet and read all about it. The Northumberland Manuscript is the only known document containing the names of both Shakespeare and Bacon.

Professor Greenblatt claims the transcriber Dyrmouth’s mind wandered and wrote “Shakespeare” several times to see what it was like to do it. No one knows for sure if Dyrmouth was the transcriber but I wonder if Professor Greenblatt’s mind wandered when he ignored the name Mr. Francis William Shakespeare clearly written on the Manuscript?

Stephen Greenblatt’s mind did not wander. It was imperative that he leave out any reference to Bacon concerning the Northumberland Manuscript because to proceed with the impossible way of existing Shakespeare would make the “Will in the World” a pointless excersize.

This omission by Stephen Greenblatt and his many Harvard advisers indicate beyond a reasonable doubt that they also believe Francis Bacon is the author of the plays which makes “Will in the World” a piece of political propaganda.

The only subject of substance in “Will in the World” is the Shagspur family history and a sociological snapshot of life in the late 1500’s and early 1600’s. Stephen Greenblatt also describes segments of home life, education, entertainment, religious persecution, street life, and the generally day-to-day experience of anyone living in England. Also, there is a focus on theater life and certain professions.

Stephen Greenblatt’s main purpose in writing “Will in the World” was to find clues in the plays and the sonnets that would all together present a credible man who wrote the plays. His method which was simple association that left him with no more than a hologram man and no real story.

“Will in the World” has failed because the author had no coherent or organized way of finding subsurface stories he probably knows is there. He needs to absorb and comprehend the plays like learning a language or like a seaman comprehends the ocean and its currents. To find the gold. He must also understand the relationship of the plays to other works of the time.

I recommend Professor Greenblatt embrace Shakespeare like Orville Owens did in 18— He memorized all of them. That opened to him him the subtle irregularities in certain lines compared to the others. Then carefully following Bacon’s advise Dr Owens found the incredibly riveting story of Queen Elizabeth’s family as well as important events of the time that come from the text itself.

“Will in the World” reinforces the illusion that the folks in Elizabethan times were different from today but I think that misunderstanding is common mainly because scholars try to picture the culture through the misinterpretion of the poetics.

For example, Stephen Greenblatt being a very intelligent fellow buys into the knock-her-up-pretty-boy absurdity which is a request to have asscess to a beautiful child – for what? Wierd. The poet of the sonnets was not wierd or a pedophile.

Please note:There are far easier and far more logical and relevant ways of understanding the sonnets.

I believe that a critic should not be allowed to critique s poetry unless the critic’s poetry is critiqued. In other words, you cannot know poetry unless you write it.

Stephen Greenblatt has more problems than other similar biographies separating truth from fiction in his “Will in the World.” He uses fewer maybe’s and could haves because he really wants substance. He can’t have substance because has chosen nothing to work with.

I also believe that Stephen Greenblatt would have won the Pulitzer Prize if he had either written a fictionalized story or had picked a playwright that actually existed.