Reviews for Women in the Age of Shakespeare

The average rating for Women in the Age of Shakespeare based on 2 reviews is 2 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2013-01-30 00:00:00 Lyndon Floyd Good book with some interesting insight to Shakespeare's use of language in his writings. One might go so far as to say it is fascinating. The first part of the book is an essay about Shakespeare's use of language in a few categories: non-sexual bawdy, homosexual, sexual, general, and valedictory. The second part of the book is a thorough glossary of the sexual or bawdy meanings behind a variety of terms and phrases from Abhorson (son of a whore) to youth (youth with its sexual curiosity and amorous ardour). Each glossary entry explains the sexual or bawdy meaning behind the term or phrase as well as provides at least one example of it being used that way in one of Shakespeare's plays. A couple of thoughts from the book, though. The author definitely emphasizes Shakespeare's sexual language over and above everything else. But, he does not give the impression that Shakespeare was a pervert. The author writes: In him [Shakespeare], erotic wit often becomes so penetrating, so profound, so brilliant that it would make us forget the eroticism, were it not that the eroticism itself is penetrating and profound; and certainly the degree of wit renders the eroticism aseptic and--except to prudes and prurients--innocuous. And further: Shakespeare knew what he intended to do--and did it. The word or phrase always suits either the speaker or the scene or the event: usually, it is consonant with all three factors. If it suits none of them, then the reader will find that it suits the psychological or moral or spiritual atmosphere, as in the speeches of Timon when fate has turned him into a misanthropist. These quotations, to me, point to the main difference between Shakespeare's bawdiness and the crudeness of many modern stories, either in writing or on television or film. Shakespeare's wit does something to the erotic that changes it, making it what the author calls aseptic and innocuous. This is not because modern readers simply don't catch the wit, it holds true even for audiences of Shakespeare's day. Further, though, his bawdy suits the speaker, scene, event, or psychological, moral, or spiritual atmosphere. Now, one could say that the same is true for a modern sitcom: the crudeness of their humor fits the story. The difference, however, is that many of these modern sitcoms create the story in such a way so that the crudeness always fits. Shakespeare, as any cursory reading will indicate to the average reader, deals with issues that are deep and complex, yet artfully brings the bawdy into those stories in a way that suits. He is a master storyteller, and Partridge's book only makes that all the more clear. One other note, Partridge has written a work that focuses on the bawdy. It is possible to read this book and think that he is somehow implying that Shakespeaere's plays are nothing but bawdy. That, of course, is not true. Were he to take the time to bring balance to the discussion, one would find that Shakespeare is just as serious when he need be as he is bawdy when it is fitting.

Review # 2 was written on 2015-03-25 00:00:00 Dan Rupp my rating reflects only the essay itself which is more a way of pointing the reader towards a directed use of the glossary, which i'm sure is stellar. there is an acid dismissive tone towards gay shakespeare scholarship; odd that he'd say the evidence doesn't support homosexuality but does prove he was an extremely skilled lover who didn't care about cuckolds