| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Brilliant,
By richard_t "richard_t" (Overseas) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Life and Times of William Shakespeare (Hardcover)
This is the best biography of Shakespeare yet written. Levi capitalizes on earlier research, debunks many of the more fanciful theories about the bard, sorts through the legends (who really wrote the plays; Shakespeare's gay lover; etc.) and provides a balanced, lively, and readable account of the Elizabethan period, life on the stage, and the origins of his writings. The latter is where Levi shines. He examines dozens upon dozens of texts, contemporaneous, ancient, obscure, and well-known to identify the sources of the works. He goes through the plays one by one with pithy comments on sources, themes, and the social and historical context for each. He has a tactile understanding of poetry and what makes Shakespeare great. His is a patient scholarship, respectful but not reverent. The biography is engrossing. It is not a quick read, but is certainly a worthwhile one.
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Poet Responds to a Poet,
By Buce (Palookaville) - See all my reviews
This review is from: The Life and Times of William Shakespeare (Paperback)
I can hardly say that Peter Levi is `the best' Shakespeare biographer-there must be a thousand of them, and I've only read a handful. Besides, I doubt that any one commentator is likely to engage all, or even very much, of a mind so various. But Levi's is a very good book with a particular virtue: it is a poet's response to a poet: recall Edmund Wilson (channeling Thoreau) on "the shock of recognition."
The poet in Levi makes him particularly helpful with a play like Loves's Labour's Lost-about the most explosive piece of versification Shakespeare ever hatched and of all his plays, I would have thought perhaps the least accessible to a modern audience. Levi makes his case that it is "a masterpiece" and concludes (this surprised me, but I am open to it)-concludes that "this play is particularly suitable even today to be played by intelligent amateurs..." Except he adds: "...who are also on intimate terms,"-which adds a whole new layer of possibility. I wonder what he would have thought of the Kenneth Branagh movie version. As a poet, Levi has one important quality that he shares with poets like Auden and Coleridge-a sensitivity to the broader culture, together with a fund of knowledge lightly worn. Once in a while his penchant takes him almost to the brink of self parody, as in this priceless bit: "The refrain of the spring song, `Cuckoo, jug, jug, pu we, to witta woo!, is a more elaborate set of bird noises than any earlier example I recall in English. I wonder whether someone has been reading Aristophanes' /Birds/ with their extraordinary noises: the `/tio tio tinx/' and so on. Or was this a foreign musical tradition? At any rate Shakespeare adopted it gleefully. In French /turelure/ was a pagpiipe but /turlut/ was a skylark, and English larks in seventeenth-century poems sing `tirra lirra': `Tirry-tirry leerers upward fly.' The most elaborate French example is by Du Bartas..." ...all the more remarkable because not one of those bits is actual Shakespeare. I think it may his poet's ear that also gives Levi a special feel for dramatic nuance. Speaking of the inimitable "porter scene" from Macbeth, Levi makes the point that the low comedy has an unexpectedly chilly edge: "Shakespeare has simply darkened the scene where he seemed to lighten it, just as he did with Pompey and Abhorson in the prison in /Measure for Meausre,/ and with the gravedigging scene in /Hamlet/. There are a thousand more such gems, not all convincing (I think he overrates /Two Gentlemen of Verona/ and underrates /Much Ado/, but let that be). From time to time, Levi enters into the game of speculation over the unanswerable questions: Shakespeare in the lost years of the 1580s, Shakespeare's patronage, Shakespeare's possible Catholicism. Levi is not uninteresting here, but this is a game anyone can play and no can win-and in any event, newer "research" on many of these points has outstripped him. Indeed in general I suspect it is fair to say that Levi is better as a critic than as a pure biographer. No matter. This is a fine book that deserves a place in any well-chosen Shakespeare library.
0 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
NONSENSE,
By Robert I. Bloom (brooklyn, ny USA) - See all my reviews
This review is from: The Life and Times of William Shakespeare (Paperback)
THE CENTRAL AND FLAWED CONCEIT OF THIS BOOK IS THAT A PERSON KNOWN AS WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE WROTE EVERYTHING ATTRIBUTED TO HIM--THERE IS NOT ONE IOTA OF EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT SHAKESPEARE COULD EVEN WRITE his own name !!!!! NOTHING IN HIS OWN WRITING EXISTS-- EVEN THE PLAYS THEMSELVES HAVE NO WRITTEN SCRIPTS PER SE TIL A HUNDRED YEARS AFTER HIS DEATH---WHEN THEY WERE WRITTEN FROM THE ORAL TRADITION IN WHICH THEY PERSISTED AND WERE PASSED ON----NOTHING ABOUT SHAKESPAEARE SUGGESTS HE WAS EDUCATED , WELL READ OR COULD POSSIBLY HAVE HAD THE WORLDLY KNOWLEDGE ATTRIBUTED TO HIM-----sir francis bacon was the most likely to be the author of the great prodigious works--NIETSZCHE KNEW IT AND MARK TWAIN KNEW IT AND MAny others-there are great videos available now which document this-america's beginnings and riddles in stone--- watch these and tell me u dont agree---nowhere does levi even mention bacon or anyone else who was more likely to have written this stuff- the man known as william shakespeare was an illiterate stage manager/actor---who probably could not even write--the only thing thought to be written by him is a mangled illegible scribble- his so called famed signature-- was scrawled by bacon most likely as well--- bacon had his reasons for attributing his works to this shakespeare fellow--- do the research that this author hasnt done---- and u will see - this shakespeare fellow wrote nothing----and couldnt have---- the book is only interesting from its historical perspective of the age these men lived--- his central conjecture is all undocumented nonsense---- like most so called history-- lies nonsense conjecture------ we know more now--or should------
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Suggested Tags from Similar Products(What's this?)Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product).
|
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
|
|
