A while ago, I saw the movie Anonymous. If you haven’t seen it, it’s either historical fiction or historical speculation – the idea is that somebody else wrote Shakespeare’s plays, specifically a nobleman named Edward de Vere. The movie told his story. It was beautifully photographed and very evocative of Elizabethan England. The chronology of the story was a bit convoluted though, so we watched it twice. (This is the advantage of waiting for a movie to be available for rent, rather than going to the movie theater!) Overall, I liked it and was intrigued by its hypothesis.
A few weeks ago, I spotted a book called “SHAKESPEARE” BY ANOTHER NAME: THE LIFE OF EDWARD DE VERE, EARL OF OXFORD, THE MAN WHO WAS SHAKESPEARE by Mark Anderson. (This is the advantage of having bricks and mortar bookstores to browse through – you can find books you didn’t know existed and synchronicity gets a little more room to play.) It’s a really interesting book. Again, it follows the life of de Vere and builds a case for him being the real author of Shakespeare’s plays. There’s no hard evidence but so many coincidences and connections that you have to wonder. I’m not an expert in this area – I’ve read Shakespeare’s plays and seen many productions, but he’s too late for me as a medievalist to know much about him and his world beyond that – but I find this book and its theory very compelling. This idea of de Vere being the actual playright was apparently suggested a long time ago. Probably there are dozens of papers by Shakespearean scholars arguing in favour of it and against it – maybe I’ll look them up when I’m done. Right now, I’m enjoying the book and the glimpse of de Vere’s life in Elizabethan England.
What about you? Have you read any non-fiction lately that’s made you rethink your assumptions?
Deborah Cooke & Her Books 
Most recently I’ve been reading ‘The Principles of Knitting’ the revised edition, and I am learning lots, but more in keeping with what you are talking about, I guess the most recent of those was a biography of Lewis Carroll I reviewed last year. It was particularly interesting because I enjoy learning about the early days of photography. The most remarkable thing I learned was the Victorian perception of nudes or almost nude figures of children not being perceived as sexual in any way, just a manifestation of purity.
I also found the early years of treatment for speech impediments interesting.
My review is here:
http://freshfiction.com/review.php?id=28878
LikeLike
It is interesting how perceptions change, isn’t it, Diana? Renaissance and medieval people weren’t so fussed about sexual orientation – they had a kind of “love the one you’re with” perspective and didn’t think one had to decide forever either way. I’m seeing some of that in this book, and the idea that homosexuality wasn’t really a concept is interesting.
Ditto on your observations about nudity, too. Interesting how some things have become so charged.
d
LikeLike