Shakespeare (2007) (edit title/settings)

• Rated 2 stars

“Dry, dry, dry. Who decided that the man who sees life in such an interesting way should write a book this boring? It's as if our good bard was in no way influenced by the world around him. This book could have been written in bullet points. To read about Shakespeare and not make inferences is an insult to the man. Bryson, write this book again without the stone around your neck!”

• Rated 4 stars

“Loved it. Wish it were longer, finished in only two days of very sporadic reading.”

• Rated 5 stars

“Loved it , loved it.”

• Rated 4 stars

“i always adore bryson, so it's a no-brainer, but it also managed to make me interested in jacobean england, which is more of a feat! i wish it could have been a bit more substantive, but bryson made it clear that there really is somewhat scant primary sourcework to be found on the man, so there you go. also liked that he addressed the various controversies about whether or not shakespeare was the real and sole author of his works and used a very deft occam's razor to simplify the argument - in short, it takes a great deal of finagling to try to justify making up evidence or inferring evidence that shakespeare didn't write these books, when the simplest and best supported argument is that, well, he did! nicely done book, made me want to go read the sonnets (a feat, to be sure).”

• Rated 5 stars

“I loved this book!

Bryson's writing style was fantastic. This isn't your ordinary biography, this is a well-rounded presentation of WHY Shakespeare is the REAL Shakespeare.

This book is thoroughly researched. I did not view a single word as propaganda. He was even-handed in his ideas and never once brought out a theory without backing it up.

I have read A LOT of biographies, and I have to say that is one of the best written ones out there.”