What do you think?
Rate this book
Shakespeare in a Divided America: What His Plays Tell Us about Our Past and Future
From leading scholar James Shapiro, a timely exploration of what Shakespeare's plays reveal about our divided land, from Revolutionary times to the present day
Read at school by almost every student, staged in theaters across the land, and long highly valued by both conservatives and liberals alike, Shakespeare's plays are rare common ground in the United States. For well over two centuries now, Americans of all stripes--presidents and activists, writers and soldiers--have turned to Shakespeare's works to address the nation's political fault lines, such as manifest destiny, race, gender, immigration, and free speech. In a narrative arching across the centuries, James Shapiro traces the unparalleled role of Shakespeare's 400-year-old tragedies and comedies in making sense of so many of these issues on which American identity has turned. Reflecting on how Shakespeare has been invoked--and at times weaponized--at pivotal moments in our past, Shapiro takes us from President John Quincy Adams's disgust with Desdemona's interracial marriage to Othello, to Abraham Lincoln's and his assassin John Wilkes Booth's competing obsessions with the plays, up through the fraught debates over marriage and same-sex love at the heart of the celebrated adaptations Kiss Me Kate and Shakespeare in Love. His narrative culminates in the 2017 controversy over the staging of Julius Caesar in Central Park, in which a Trump-like leader is assassinated.
Extraordinarily researched, Shakespeare in a Divided America shows that no writer has been more closely embraced by Americans, or has shed more light on the hot-button issues in our history. Indeed, it is by better understanding Shakespeare's role in American life, Shapiro argues, that we might begin to mend our bitterly divided land.
Read at school by almost every student, staged in theaters across the land, and long highly valued by both conservatives and liberals alike, Shakespeare's plays are rare common ground in the United States. For well over two centuries now, Americans of all stripes--presidents and activists, writers and soldiers--have turned to Shakespeare's works to address the nation's political fault lines, such as manifest destiny, race, gender, immigration, and free speech. In a narrative arching across the centuries, James Shapiro traces the unparalleled role of Shakespeare's 400-year-old tragedies and comedies in making sense of so many of these issues on which American identity has turned. Reflecting on how Shakespeare has been invoked--and at times weaponized--at pivotal moments in our past, Shapiro takes us from President John Quincy Adams's disgust with Desdemona's interracial marriage to Othello, to Abraham Lincoln's and his assassin John Wilkes Booth's competing obsessions with the plays, up through the fraught debates over marriage and same-sex love at the heart of the celebrated adaptations Kiss Me Kate and Shakespeare in Love. His narrative culminates in the 2017 controversy over the staging of Julius Caesar in Central Park, in which a Trump-like leader is assassinated.
Extraordinarily researched, Shakespeare in a Divided America shows that no writer has been more closely embraced by Americans, or has shed more light on the hot-button issues in our history. Indeed, it is by better understanding Shakespeare's role in American life, Shapiro argues, that we might begin to mend our bitterly divided land.
286 pages, Hardcover
First published March 10, 2020
About the author
James Shapiro
24 books187 followersA specialist in Shakespeare and the Early Modern period, James S. Shapiro is Larry Miller Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University, where he has taught since 1985. He has been awarded fellowships from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Guggenheim Foundation, the New York Public Library Cullman Center for Scholars and Writers, and the American Academy in Berlin. In 2011, he was inducted into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He currently serves as a Shakespeare Scholar in Residence at the Public Theater in New York City.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 583 reviews
July 15, 2023
Two points of interest: This book was selected by the New York Times as one of the "Ten Best Books of 2020." Very cool. Also, everything I wrote below was written under the influence of Trump (as Divider in Chief, relevant to the book in a big way), but Ding-Dong the Witch is Dead. Or at least blessedly lame. For now. (I've seen enough of the final scene in the movie Fatal Attraction -- a metaphor for a certain segment of "believe anythings" in the U.S. -- to know that Glen Close isn't quite as "Closed" as you think... food for scary thought as the possibly apocalyptic year 2024 descends on the Still Divided as Ever States).
N0w back to our original review:
********************************
The premise behind James Shapiro's book is twofold: one, to show how America adopted the Bard from the get-go, and two, to show how America's deeply rooted "issues" are reflected in Shakespeare plays.
A look at the eight chapters gives you a good idea of the game plan:
1. 1833, Miscegenation, which treats on RACE and John Quincy Adams' objections to Othello and Desdemona's mixed relationship (despite being an abolitionist himself).
2. 1845, Manifest Destiny, tackles GENDER and is mostly about the hidden lesbian actress, Charlotte Cushman, who specialized in male roles, especially ROMEO, whose part, in those days, was considered somewhat unmanly anyway because of the way he cry-babies in front of Friar Laurence, who upbraids the Montague for his womanly tears. Really weird? The chapter is bookended with anecdotes about the young, pre-bearded Ulysses Grant who was chosen to play the role of Desdemona in an Army production before the Mexican War began in earnest. Apparently 20-something Ulysses was slight of build, fine of face, and somewhat light of voice. (Man, did he make up for lost time later in life.)
3. 1849, Class Warfare. This brings us to Astor Place in NYC where the ritzy sorts built a playhouse for the ritzy sorts and featured a British actor in Macbeth. The mob (redblooded Americans, they be) championed an AMERICAN Shakespeare actor and, hating Brits, attacked Astor Place. This was eye-opening violence unbeknownst to me. The rabble, despite living in New York, also hated blacks and abolitionists (South Carolinians of the same era would be proud.). Shakespeare for the (Red-Meat) People vs. Shakespeare for the (Blue-Blooded) Elites.
4. 1865, Assassination. The best chapter, maybe because it gives us a president who not only loves Shakespeare but memorizes dozens of long speeches in the Bard's plays. Lincoln was partial to Macbeth especially. His fave soliloquy was Duncan's near the end of the play. Meanwhile, the little white supremacist named John Wilkes Booth, also loved him some Shakespeare. Acted in countless plays and once was even seen performing by President Lincoln. Booth loved playing Brutus stabbing Caesar. Once he even ad-libbed in Sic Semper Tyrannus! (what he later shouted after shooting Lincoln from behind like any garden-variety coward) during the Caesar stabbing. What a rube.
5. 1916, Immigration. If you thought xenophobia and immigrant hating was something new, this chapter has news for you. Like race, it runs deep into our history, and 1916 was a banner year. Blueblood Republican (and Shakespeare fan) Henry Cabot Lodge was forever introducing legislation to keep out Africans, Asians, East Europeans, and Southern Europeans. The Shakespeare link here is The Tempest. Caliban, you see, was the perfect poster monster for immigrants sullying our precious, white-sanded shores. Read it and weep (along with the Statue of Liberty).
6. 1948, Marriage. Nobody much likes The Taming of the Shrew, they say. This chapter tackles the story of Kiss Me, Kate, a Broadway play based on the Shrew play. I've never read the one or seen the other, but the history of the play and America's ideas about marriage (hint: heterosexual marriage, please) was interesting, especially considering what was going on a.) in the back-stage plot of Kiss Me, Kate and b.) in the lives of the writers, producers, and songwriters of the play themselves. In addition to same-sex attraction, the chapter examines the roles of men v. women after WWII. The little ladies, so integral to the war economy, were now being asked to step aside. Some didn't take kindly to it.
7. 1998, Adultery and Same-Sex Love. It's all about the movie Shakespeare in Love, the fight over its plot, how it took forever to make it to the screen, how the ending was a headache, how one version intimated at Shakespeare's alleged homosexual or bisexual hankerings, etc. Hell, even Harvey Weinstein is involved here. Yikes.
8. 2017, Left Right. Although the whole book has a subcurrent screaming "Donald Trump!" it all breaks out in the open in this chapter about the Delacorte production of a very Trumpish looking Julius Caesar and how the alt right (with Friends and Fox and Friends) helped blow it up out of context (of course) and without actually seeing the play (of course again). The power of social media meets Shakespeare in the park. Now we're talking Shakespeare in a Divided America.
But really, the point is, it's been divided all along. Badly. Embarrassingly. Where's Lincoln when you need him?
N0w back to our original review:
********************************
The premise behind James Shapiro's book is twofold: one, to show how America adopted the Bard from the get-go, and two, to show how America's deeply rooted "issues" are reflected in Shakespeare plays.
A look at the eight chapters gives you a good idea of the game plan:
1. 1833, Miscegenation, which treats on RACE and John Quincy Adams' objections to Othello and Desdemona's mixed relationship (despite being an abolitionist himself).
2. 1845, Manifest Destiny, tackles GENDER and is mostly about the hidden lesbian actress, Charlotte Cushman, who specialized in male roles, especially ROMEO, whose part, in those days, was considered somewhat unmanly anyway because of the way he cry-babies in front of Friar Laurence, who upbraids the Montague for his womanly tears. Really weird? The chapter is bookended with anecdotes about the young, pre-bearded Ulysses Grant who was chosen to play the role of Desdemona in an Army production before the Mexican War began in earnest. Apparently 20-something Ulysses was slight of build, fine of face, and somewhat light of voice. (Man, did he make up for lost time later in life.)
3. 1849, Class Warfare. This brings us to Astor Place in NYC where the ritzy sorts built a playhouse for the ritzy sorts and featured a British actor in Macbeth. The mob (redblooded Americans, they be) championed an AMERICAN Shakespeare actor and, hating Brits, attacked Astor Place. This was eye-opening violence unbeknownst to me. The rabble, despite living in New York, also hated blacks and abolitionists (South Carolinians of the same era would be proud.). Shakespeare for the (Red-Meat) People vs. Shakespeare for the (Blue-Blooded) Elites.
4. 1865, Assassination. The best chapter, maybe because it gives us a president who not only loves Shakespeare but memorizes dozens of long speeches in the Bard's plays. Lincoln was partial to Macbeth especially. His fave soliloquy was Duncan's near the end of the play. Meanwhile, the little white supremacist named John Wilkes Booth, also loved him some Shakespeare. Acted in countless plays and once was even seen performing by President Lincoln. Booth loved playing Brutus stabbing Caesar. Once he even ad-libbed in Sic Semper Tyrannus! (what he later shouted after shooting Lincoln from behind like any garden-variety coward) during the Caesar stabbing. What a rube.
5. 1916, Immigration. If you thought xenophobia and immigrant hating was something new, this chapter has news for you. Like race, it runs deep into our history, and 1916 was a banner year. Blueblood Republican (and Shakespeare fan) Henry Cabot Lodge was forever introducing legislation to keep out Africans, Asians, East Europeans, and Southern Europeans. The Shakespeare link here is The Tempest. Caliban, you see, was the perfect poster monster for immigrants sullying our precious, white-sanded shores. Read it and weep (along with the Statue of Liberty).
6. 1948, Marriage. Nobody much likes The Taming of the Shrew, they say. This chapter tackles the story of Kiss Me, Kate, a Broadway play based on the Shrew play. I've never read the one or seen the other, but the history of the play and America's ideas about marriage (hint: heterosexual marriage, please) was interesting, especially considering what was going on a.) in the back-stage plot of Kiss Me, Kate and b.) in the lives of the writers, producers, and songwriters of the play themselves. In addition to same-sex attraction, the chapter examines the roles of men v. women after WWII. The little ladies, so integral to the war economy, were now being asked to step aside. Some didn't take kindly to it.
7. 1998, Adultery and Same-Sex Love. It's all about the movie Shakespeare in Love, the fight over its plot, how it took forever to make it to the screen, how the ending was a headache, how one version intimated at Shakespeare's alleged homosexual or bisexual hankerings, etc. Hell, even Harvey Weinstein is involved here. Yikes.
8. 2017, Left Right. Although the whole book has a subcurrent screaming "Donald Trump!" it all breaks out in the open in this chapter about the Delacorte production of a very Trumpish looking Julius Caesar and how the alt right (with Friends and Fox and Friends) helped blow it up out of context (of course) and without actually seeing the play (of course again). The power of social media meets Shakespeare in the park. Now we're talking Shakespeare in a Divided America.
But really, the point is, it's been divided all along. Badly. Embarrassingly. Where's Lincoln when you need him?
October 6, 2021
I’m With The Jew
This book is about the timelessness, as well as the timeliness, of Shakespeare. That his work continues to attract readers and watchers, particularly outside his native England, is somewhat a mystery. His language is archaic; his plots complex; his characters morally ambiguous; and his historical settings unfamiliar. But perhaps it is precisely these characteristics which make his work archetypal - familiar enough to recognise, but also alien enough to demand attention and constant interpretation.
While reading Shapiro’s thoughts on the reception of Shakespeare by various audiences, I recalled taking my 12 year old grandson and his 8 year old sister to a production of The Merchant of Venice in Stratford-upon-Avon. We were seated close to the side of the stage in the semi-circular theatre, so the children got full exposure to the technique of the actors as well as the dialogue. At the intermission I asked the lad about his impression. Without hesitation he said, “I’m with the Jew.” His sister was less opinionated but nevertheless had a clear conclusion based on the rapid pace of the play: “Shakespeare sure has a lot of words,” she said.
I was impressed equally by both responses. The play, of course, is about what constitutes the proper criterion of moral judgment. It is not really possible to be not ‘with’ Shylock in light of the scam being carried out at his expense. To my grandson this was obvious suggesting a deterioration of the force of the mythical denotation ‘Jew’ for his generation. Yet his sister also had an important point: the performance was quick, not just in terms of the speed of delivery of the lines but in the rapid layering of moral discourse. It is difficult to keep up with Shakespeare’s subtlety as well as the actors’ highly nuanced interpretations, even for seasoned theatre-goers.
Shapiro is right to compare Shakespeare to the Bible. But the reason is not just the similarity of the Elizabethan English. It is rather, I think, Shakespeare’s equivalently capacious interpretability. There are, I am sure, Shakespearean fundamentalists who, like their biblical counterparts, believe they have the definitive assessment of Hamlet’s character or the ethical flaws of Lady Macbeth or for that matter the appropriate staging of any of the man’s plays. But the fact is that Shakespeare, like the Bible, provokes new, often contrary, interpretations of his work continuously. If there is a bottom to this interpretation, no one’s approached it yet - just as my grandchildren demonstrated yet again.
This book is about the timelessness, as well as the timeliness, of Shakespeare. That his work continues to attract readers and watchers, particularly outside his native England, is somewhat a mystery. His language is archaic; his plots complex; his characters morally ambiguous; and his historical settings unfamiliar. But perhaps it is precisely these characteristics which make his work archetypal - familiar enough to recognise, but also alien enough to demand attention and constant interpretation.
While reading Shapiro’s thoughts on the reception of Shakespeare by various audiences, I recalled taking my 12 year old grandson and his 8 year old sister to a production of The Merchant of Venice in Stratford-upon-Avon. We were seated close to the side of the stage in the semi-circular theatre, so the children got full exposure to the technique of the actors as well as the dialogue. At the intermission I asked the lad about his impression. Without hesitation he said, “I’m with the Jew.” His sister was less opinionated but nevertheless had a clear conclusion based on the rapid pace of the play: “Shakespeare sure has a lot of words,” she said.
I was impressed equally by both responses. The play, of course, is about what constitutes the proper criterion of moral judgment. It is not really possible to be not ‘with’ Shylock in light of the scam being carried out at his expense. To my grandson this was obvious suggesting a deterioration of the force of the mythical denotation ‘Jew’ for his generation. Yet his sister also had an important point: the performance was quick, not just in terms of the speed of delivery of the lines but in the rapid layering of moral discourse. It is difficult to keep up with Shakespeare’s subtlety as well as the actors’ highly nuanced interpretations, even for seasoned theatre-goers.
Shapiro is right to compare Shakespeare to the Bible. But the reason is not just the similarity of the Elizabethan English. It is rather, I think, Shakespeare’s equivalently capacious interpretability. There are, I am sure, Shakespearean fundamentalists who, like their biblical counterparts, believe they have the definitive assessment of Hamlet’s character or the ethical flaws of Lady Macbeth or for that matter the appropriate staging of any of the man’s plays. But the fact is that Shakespeare, like the Bible, provokes new, often contrary, interpretations of his work continuously. If there is a bottom to this interpretation, no one’s approached it yet - just as my grandchildren demonstrated yet again.
September 10, 2021
Shapiro is the rare academic who writes in an accessible and inviting way. He discusses a handful of Shakespeare's plays (as well as the movie "Shakespeare in Love") and connects them to divisive times in US history. It has been a while since I had read (or seen) any of the plays discussed but I was still engaged. Enjoyable and enlightening.
February 2, 2021
Shakespeare in a Divided America: What His Plays Tell Us about Our Past and Future was a deeply researched and well-sourced history of America as seen through the lens of the varied plays by William Shakepseare from The Taming of the Shrew to Othello to Julius Caesar to A Midsummer Night's Dream to Hamlet and Macbeth. Author James Shapiro explores the importance of Shakespeare before the American Revolutionary War in the formation of America and traces the importance of Shakespeare to our founding fathers and presidents throughout our sometimes tumultuous history in establishing and keeping a democracy.
Shapiro, in speaking of the importance of the works of Shakespeare, states it as follows:
"His writing continues to function as canary in a coal mine, alerting us to, among other things, the toxic prejudices poisoning our cultural climate. At some deep level Americans intuit that our collective nightmares are connected to the sins of our national past, papered over or repressed in the making of America and its greatness; on occasion, Shakespeare's plays allow us to recognize if not acknowledge this."
This was an intriguing book looking at the centuries in America enhanced by Shakespeare's works through the culmination of Shapiro's narrative in June 2017 in Central Park with the controversy over the staging of Julius Ceasar at the Delacorte Theater with a Trump-like character being assassinated on stage.
But my favorite chapter was about Abraham Lincoln and John Wilkes Booth. Lincoln always had Shakespeare's works with him and relied on the insight and comfort from those iconic plays. His favorite play was Macbeth, and one of his favorite passages:
Shapiro, in speaking of the importance of the works of Shakespeare, states it as follows:
"His writing continues to function as canary in a coal mine, alerting us to, among other things, the toxic prejudices poisoning our cultural climate. At some deep level Americans intuit that our collective nightmares are connected to the sins of our national past, papered over or repressed in the making of America and its greatness; on occasion, Shakespeare's plays allow us to recognize if not acknowledge this."
This was an intriguing book looking at the centuries in America enhanced by Shakespeare's works through the culmination of Shapiro's narrative in June 2017 in Central Park with the controversy over the staging of Julius Ceasar at the Delacorte Theater with a Trump-like character being assassinated on stage.
But my favorite chapter was about Abraham Lincoln and John Wilkes Booth. Lincoln always had Shakespeare's works with him and relied on the insight and comfort from those iconic plays. His favorite play was Macbeth, and one of his favorite passages:
"Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing." (5.5.19-28)
February 23, 2023
I finished this book just as the United States Capitol Building was reclaimed following a brief but alarming and seditious siege at the hands of fellow Americans. In that context, this passage from the epilogue is nothing short of chilling:
"...it was time to topple the old regime and metaphorically...assassinate Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. 'This is our war,' he (Bannon) added. 'The establishment started it...you all are gonna finish it.' There was not a peep of protest when Bannon made this threat...I suspect that in urging that Mitch McConnell be eliminated by some emboldened Brutus, Bannon's unspoken desire was for what would ultimately follow - that the action he was encouraging, in Antony's words, would "let slip the dogs of war," unleash chaos that would overturn established order."
A divided America, indeed.
As for Shapiro's book, it is unified through obvious expertise, careful scholarship, and the author's passion for his subject matter. There are many sections that are as compelling as they are enlightening. While I suspect these may differ from reader to reader, there is likely to be something here for everyone. My own favorite chapters - in addition to the epilogue already cited - dealt with Miscegenation, Manifest Destiny, Class Warfare, and Assassination.
There were occasional choices that tripped me up. Shapiro's insistence on frequently referring to The Tempest as a "comedy" is a bit odd. Certainly the First Folio (1623) has it listed that way, but that play has been classified as a "romance" by most aficionados longer than Shapiro has been alive. Many also include it in the small subcategory of "the problem plays", but no mention is made of that here, despite the fact that I think doing so would have strengthened the author's thesis.
I'm quite familiar with Cole Porter's 1948 show Kiss Me, Kate, but Shapiro's precis of the plot and structure lacks clarity and lost me even so. I also wish to push back on his assertion that it is "one of America's most enduring musicals". That's a big, big stretch. It doesn't even rank in the Top 50 from the 20th century, and its popularity is dwarfed by the only Porter musical that could lay claim to such praise, Anything Goes.
Shakespeare's Art has enriched my life immeasurably. He took good material from great sources - Ovid, Plutarch, Boccaccio - and transformed it into theatrical works that still inspire, challenge, thrill, and confront us today. Shapiro shows that this has been true in America since before the colonies were granted their independence, and makes an excellent case for it continuing to be so for centuries to come. After today's attempted political insurrection, I do have to wonder if the United States will still be relevant to the wider world that far into the future. Shakespeare, however, seems a sure bet.
"...it was time to topple the old regime and metaphorically...assassinate Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. 'This is our war,' he (Bannon) added. 'The establishment started it...you all are gonna finish it.' There was not a peep of protest when Bannon made this threat...I suspect that in urging that Mitch McConnell be eliminated by some emboldened Brutus, Bannon's unspoken desire was for what would ultimately follow - that the action he was encouraging, in Antony's words, would "let slip the dogs of war," unleash chaos that would overturn established order."
A divided America, indeed.
As for Shapiro's book, it is unified through obvious expertise, careful scholarship, and the author's passion for his subject matter. There are many sections that are as compelling as they are enlightening. While I suspect these may differ from reader to reader, there is likely to be something here for everyone. My own favorite chapters - in addition to the epilogue already cited - dealt with Miscegenation, Manifest Destiny, Class Warfare, and Assassination.
There were occasional choices that tripped me up. Shapiro's insistence on frequently referring to The Tempest as a "comedy" is a bit odd. Certainly the First Folio (1623) has it listed that way, but that play has been classified as a "romance" by most aficionados longer than Shapiro has been alive. Many also include it in the small subcategory of "the problem plays", but no mention is made of that here, despite the fact that I think doing so would have strengthened the author's thesis.
I'm quite familiar with Cole Porter's 1948 show Kiss Me, Kate, but Shapiro's precis of the plot and structure lacks clarity and lost me even so. I also wish to push back on his assertion that it is "one of America's most enduring musicals". That's a big, big stretch. It doesn't even rank in the Top 50 from the 20th century, and its popularity is dwarfed by the only Porter musical that could lay claim to such praise, Anything Goes.
Shakespeare's Art has enriched my life immeasurably. He took good material from great sources - Ovid, Plutarch, Boccaccio - and transformed it into theatrical works that still inspire, challenge, thrill, and confront us today. Shapiro shows that this has been true in America since before the colonies were granted their independence, and makes an excellent case for it continuing to be so for centuries to come. After today's attempted political insurrection, I do have to wonder if the United States will still be relevant to the wider world that far into the future. Shakespeare, however, seems a sure bet.
February 23, 2024
One of the things that Shakespeare’s writing has in common with the Bible is that they are both widely quoted by people on all sides of political and religious questions in support of their point of view. This book provides a slice of American history focused on the role Shakespeare’s works played in a variety of instances of deep political division.
With reference made to “divided America” in the title, it’s not surprising that the idea for this book was prompted by the fire storm of right-wing protests that erupted in reaction to Public Theater’s production of Julius Caesar in 2017. The book opens with a description of that performance, makes brief mention of objections, and then says the reader will have to wait until the end of the book to read about the rest of the story.
Sandwiched between these two accounts of the Public Theater’s production are the historic accounts of Americans divided by Shakespeare’s plays. The following is my listing of the stories described by this book. I’ve included only the briefest of descriptions other than providing links for additional detail.
• Astor Place Riot, May 10, 1849 (class warfare)
• Fanny Kemble, John Quincy Adams (Othello/miscegenation)
• Young U.S.Grant, Romeo and Juliet (Manifest Destiny)
• Booth, Lincoln (both inspired by Shakespeare)
• Henry Cabot Lodge, The Tempest (immigration)
• Taming of the Shrew, Kiss Me, Kate (feminism, me-too)
• Twelfth Night, Shakespeare in Love (adultery, same-sex love)
Then the book returns to Public Theater’s production of Julius Caesar. Its initial performance occurred a month after the 2016 election in modern business attire, and it didn’t take much imagination to see Julius Caesar as Trump. But people were encouraged to be aware of the plot’s nuance even providing the following advice to the audience on opening night.
I was surprised how much I enjoyed this book because its focus on Shakespeare in America was a history with which I had little previous exposure.
With reference made to “divided America” in the title, it’s not surprising that the idea for this book was prompted by the fire storm of right-wing protests that erupted in reaction to Public Theater’s production of Julius Caesar in 2017. The book opens with a description of that performance, makes brief mention of objections, and then says the reader will have to wait until the end of the book to read about the rest of the story.
Sandwiched between these two accounts of the Public Theater’s production are the historic accounts of Americans divided by Shakespeare’s plays. The following is my listing of the stories described by this book. I’ve included only the briefest of descriptions other than providing links for additional detail.
• Astor Place Riot, May 10, 1849 (class warfare)
• Fanny Kemble, John Quincy Adams (Othello/miscegenation)
• Young U.S.Grant, Romeo and Juliet (Manifest Destiny)
• Booth, Lincoln (both inspired by Shakespeare)
• Henry Cabot Lodge, The Tempest (immigration)
• Taming of the Shrew, Kiss Me, Kate (feminism, me-too)
• Twelfth Night, Shakespeare in Love (adultery, same-sex love)
Then the book returns to Public Theater’s production of Julius Caesar. Its initial performance occurred a month after the 2016 election in modern business attire, and it didn’t take much imagination to see Julius Caesar as Trump. But people were encouraged to be aware of the plot’s nuance even providing the following advice to the audience on opening night.
This play … warns about what happens when you try to preserve democracy by nondemocratic means. And. … (spoiler alert) … it doesn’t end up too good. But at the same time, one of the dangers that is unleashed by that is the danger of a large crowd crowd of people manipulated by their emotions, taken over by leaders who urge them to do things that not only are against their interests, but destroy their very institutions that are there to serve and protect them.But appreciation of nuance and MAGA people don’t mix. All that could be seen was the assassination of Caesar. The play's producers “had underestimated the rightwing media machine and how expert it had become in taking a piece of information, creating a false narrative about it, and rilling up the masses of people who were angry and disenfranchised.” Death threats and warnings of violence followed—it was brutal.
I was surprised how much I enjoyed this book because its focus on Shakespeare in America was a history with which I had little previous exposure.
January 15, 2021
Pretty contrived at times but generally excellent.
December 11, 2020
I wouldn't have read this if it hadn't appeared on the New York Times Best Books of 2020 but thankful I did. A remarkable examination of how Shakespeare as a cultural product has been used across the political spectrum to advance both radical and reactionary ideas, Shapiro digs deep into seven historic instances where Shakespeare's work has responded to our helped shape moments of unsettling social turmoil. Lovers of the Bard or of US history will get alot from this work and hopefully enjoy it as much as I did.
November 6, 2021
There is no question this will be one of my top reads of 2021, and I can enthusiastically recommend it to anyone with an interest in both Shakespeare and American history. Actually, those who are interested only in Shakespeare or only in American history would probably each also find plenty to appreciate here.
In this book James Shapiro, a highly regarded Shakespeare scholar, explores the role of the bard's plays at eight points in American history as either a reflection of the then-current culture, or an influencer of that culture. His approach generally involves highlighting a dichotomy in how the plays, and in some cases the actors, are viewed from opposing social or political perspectives.
Shapiro's research is meticulous, whether he is analyzing documents from J. Q. Adams' college years, the 19th century actor Charlotte Cushman playing Romeo, or anecdotes involving Harvey Weinstein. Although I was familiar with the background against which he sets most of his discussions, I was completely unaware of the Astor Place riots in New York which resulted in the largest number of civilian casualties as a result of military action up to that point in the U.S. And it was triggered by competing productions of Macbeth!
Sadly, his concluding chapter, which covers the right-wing reaction to the NYC Public Theater's 2016 production of Julius Caesar, left me completely unnerved. Shapiro's analysis deftly highlights the inability to control fake news in the age of social media, and ends with the observation that it is not impossible that American culture of this century could mirror the English in the 17th century, when a vibrant artistic/theatrical scene was supplanted a few decades later by the beheading of a king and the ascendancy of the puritanical Oliver Cromwell. It would be nice to think it couldn't happen here - but based on this year's politics, I'm not so sure.
In this book James Shapiro, a highly regarded Shakespeare scholar, explores the role of the bard's plays at eight points in American history as either a reflection of the then-current culture, or an influencer of that culture. His approach generally involves highlighting a dichotomy in how the plays, and in some cases the actors, are viewed from opposing social or political perspectives.
Shapiro's research is meticulous, whether he is analyzing documents from J. Q. Adams' college years, the 19th century actor Charlotte Cushman playing Romeo, or anecdotes involving Harvey Weinstein. Although I was familiar with the background against which he sets most of his discussions, I was completely unaware of the Astor Place riots in New York which resulted in the largest number of civilian casualties as a result of military action up to that point in the U.S. And it was triggered by competing productions of Macbeth!
Sadly, his concluding chapter, which covers the right-wing reaction to the NYC Public Theater's 2016 production of Julius Caesar, left me completely unnerved. Shapiro's analysis deftly highlights the inability to control fake news in the age of social media, and ends with the observation that it is not impossible that American culture of this century could mirror the English in the 17th century, when a vibrant artistic/theatrical scene was supplanted a few decades later by the beheading of a king and the ascendancy of the puritanical Oliver Cromwell. It would be nice to think it couldn't happen here - but based on this year's politics, I'm not so sure.
January 10, 2021
4.5, could easily have rounded this up. Excellent. Thanks to my IBR friends for choosing this. I would have never read it on my own.
June 30, 2021
* 4.5 *
Excellent, engaging, timely. This is a work that might have escaped my attention if not for the ever-reliable New York Times notable books list.
I probably learnt more from this book about the deep divisions in US society than I have in any number of political essays or books.
Shapiro, rather than " attempting a rushed survey" elects to "drill down .. into eight defining moments in America's history" and looks closely at how Shakespeare’s works informed those moments. Turns out Shakespeare has plenty to be responsible for; the assassination of Lincoln, the Astor Theatre riots, and most regrettably the film Shakespeare in Love.
Shapiro is a pre-eminent Shakespeare scholar and his research here is impeccable, yet this remains highly readable even to a Bard neophyte like myself.
If nothing else, then read this for the introduction and final chapter dealing with the epic furore around the 2017 production of Julius Caesar in Central Park, where a Trump-like Caesar causes a right-wing meltdown. It’s a great example of how essential and provocative Shakespeare continues to be.
It’s a rare author that makes me want to pick up “ancient plays” in my spare time, although George Saunders managed the same trick with Russian short stories, so maybe I am moving closer to Classic Literature enthusiast than I am willing to admit. However, I will not be starting my journey with The Taming of the Shrew …
Excellent, engaging, timely. This is a work that might have escaped my attention if not for the ever-reliable New York Times notable books list.
I probably learnt more from this book about the deep divisions in US society than I have in any number of political essays or books.
Shapiro, rather than " attempting a rushed survey" elects to "drill down .. into eight defining moments in America's history" and looks closely at how Shakespeare’s works informed those moments. Turns out Shakespeare has plenty to be responsible for; the assassination of Lincoln, the Astor Theatre riots, and most regrettably the film Shakespeare in Love.
Shapiro is a pre-eminent Shakespeare scholar and his research here is impeccable, yet this remains highly readable even to a Bard neophyte like myself.
If nothing else, then read this for the introduction and final chapter dealing with the epic furore around the 2017 production of Julius Caesar in Central Park, where a Trump-like Caesar causes a right-wing meltdown. It’s a great example of how essential and provocative Shakespeare continues to be.
It’s a rare author that makes me want to pick up “ancient plays” in my spare time, although George Saunders managed the same trick with Russian short stories, so maybe I am moving closer to Classic Literature enthusiast than I am willing to admit. However, I will not be starting my journey with The Taming of the Shrew …
January 16, 2021
There's a lot to like in this collection of essays for this English/History teacher and nerd. What I think Shapiro has done most successfully in this book, is articulate what I have at times struggled to in my own classroom; through a range of contexts and examples he demonstrates coherently how the works of Shakespeare remain relevant, connected, cultural touchstones which continue to speak to our lived experiences in this world. I felt the strongest essays by far, were those that examined Julius Caesar in the context of Trump's America, and in many ways, I felt the rest of the book was built from this point. At times, I enjoyed the History more than the connections Shapiro was making to the work of Shakespeare, and I felt for cohesion, this collection would have benefitted from a more balanced survey of historical eras. These are minor criticisms though. Shapiro has drawn together literature and history, two of my favourite things, and I am glad that I read this engaging book.
March 20, 2021
As a lover of Shakespeare I can’t help but think of the lack of Shakespeare criticism coming from younger writers, from Black and brown writers, from women and trans writers, from queer writers, and from writers in so many other marginalized groups. I don’t know that this book needed to exist.
•
•
Shapiro isn’t saying anything new. His perspective is neither fresh nor critical when we think about American culture and how it’s created and sustained. I can imagine a better version of this book that subverts and challenges thinking instead of playing into white male America’s notions of itself. The book has a few glimpses of this in the introduction and conclusion but everything in between falls short.
•
•
Shapiro isn’t saying anything new. His perspective is neither fresh nor critical when we think about American culture and how it’s created and sustained. I can imagine a better version of this book that subverts and challenges thinking instead of playing into white male America’s notions of itself. The book has a few glimpses of this in the introduction and conclusion but everything in between falls short.
January 14, 2021
3.5 ⭐️ rounded up. This was an interesting look at how Shakespeare’s plays have often reflected current cultural attitudes in America over the years. Some of the early stuff in the book on how prior presidents attributed importance to the plays and the parts on early theater in NYC were fascinating. Overall a little light on both history and analysis, but a fun read.
January 14, 2021
Shakespeare in a Divided America is surprisingly readable and remarkably erudite. Ignorant as I am about basic American foundational texts — the U.S. Constitution, the Christian Bible, and Shakespeare too — I know enough that the Bible and the Constitution are both interpreted fluidly to meet readers' immediate needs and desires. But Shakespeare too? I hadn't understood just how fluidly Shakespeare can be interpreted before reading Shakespeare in a Divided America. My quibble with Shapiro's excellent book was that I wanted more of a theoretical wrap-up. 4.5 stars
January 4, 2021
A creative view of Shakespeare in America. The author is a Shakespeare expert. My understanding of of the plays (I have yet to even read them all) is evident in following the analysis. It was an interesting history book and a thoughtful discussion of America's underlying conflict between the "elite" and the rest of us. That shifting and easily manipulated conflict is a central theme of this book. The work therefore does evoke a thoughtful review of America as it relates to the esteemed literature of Shakespeare and the "culture" and "literacy" the Bard represents. In all a fascinating analysis but I left off a star because I feel the author should have realized most readers are not as familiar with Shakespeare as one should be to get the full weight of this analysis.
April 17, 2020
Extremely interesting, engaging, and thoughtful. Shapiro looks at a number of stress points in American culture -- race, immigration, class, nationalism, gender, etc. -- and explores how those stressors influenced how Shakespeare's plays were thought of, acted, and performed over the course of our history.
The book begins with "Othello." Many productions in antebellum America hedged on whether Othello was truly black or merely a dark-skinned "Moor." (Shapiro writes of how many Southerners, including -- notably -- John Wilkes Booth, were absolutely certain that "Othello was a white man!") This chapter focuses primarily on John Quincy Adams, a complicated man on the matter of race: on one hand, Adams was a vocal advocate for abolition and he defended the Amistad slaves in the trial about their mutiny; on the other hand, he was himself deeply racist. An essay he wrote about the play reads in part, My objections to the character of Desdemona arise not from what Iago, or Roderigo, or Brabantio, or Othello says of her; but from what she herself does. She absconds from her father's house, in the dead of night, to marry a blackamoor. She breaks a father's heart, and covers his noble house with shame, to gratify -- what? Pure love, like that of Juliet or Miranda? No! Unnatural passion; it cannot be named with delicacy. Her admirers now say... that the color of Othello has nothing to do with the passion of Desdemona. No? Why, if Othello had been white, what need would there have been for her running away with him? I was fascinated by Shapiro's description of the interaction between Adams and a young British actress who had performed in the play and was astonished by what he said over dinner.
Another striking point: Theater had quite a different presence in American culture in the 19th century than it does today. Shapiro tells, for example, of the cutthroat competitions between acting companies that led in 1849 to what came to be known as the Astor Place Riots, wherein "more than a score were killed and a hundred or so wounded." Indeed, as Shapiro notes, "between 1816 and 1834 alone there were twenty-nine theater-related riots in New York City." (The words used by contemporaries to talk about the violence were memorable. One actor, looking back on the riot, wrote, "Some were saying that it was a rascally thing that the people should be shot down and murdered in the streets..." 'Rascally' indeed.)
Shapiro's chapter on the famous Booth acting family is equally fascinating. John Wilkes Booth began performing scenes from "Julius Caesar" at the age of 12, and as the years passed Shakespeare's works held a greater and greater influence on his life. Shakespeare's words are everywhere in the things he wrote and said in the days immediately before and after he assassinated President Lincoln. Indeed, he often cast himself in a Shakespearean role in describing his actions, motivations, and circumstances. In a diary entry written as he fled his pursuers he complained about "being hunted like a dog through swamps, woods... wit every man's hand against me... And why? For doing what Brutus was honored for."
As it happens, Lincoln himself was entranced by Shakespeare. He often carried with him an edition of one play or another. Moreover, he had committed to memory countless scenes and speeches from the Bard's plays and was wont to recite them either for the simple joy of it, or because the words seemed apt in a given situation, or because they were a means of giving voice to the sadness he felt as the Civil War dragged on. Lincoln relied on a few dependable listeners, including the young men who worked in the War Department's telegraph office, which he visited on a daily basis... While awaiting news, Lincoln recited Shakespeare from copies of the plays he brought with him. More poignantly, as Shapiro reminds us, shortly before he was killed Lincoln had a disturbing dream wherein he envisioned his own death while in office. The dream haunted him for days, and in speaking of it he spoke of "Banquo's ghost" and quoted Hamlet's famous soliloquy. "To sleep, perchance to dream! Ay, there's the rub," with (as one person later remembered), "a strong accent on the last three words."
Shapiro uses "The Tempest" and the character of Caliban to talk about American attitudes to immigration (as complicated and troubling then as they are now), and how common it was to see the play as being essentially about America, and Shakespeare himself "an American hero."
I could go on like this for a long time, but I'll content myself with pointing to highlights. Shapiro has lively stories and analyses of: how "Taming of the Shrew" was "translated" into the Broadway musical "Kiss Me Kate," which was originally conceived as being multiracial and quite forthcoming in having gay characters but which for some reason (ahem) had an entirely different look when it was finally staged and filmed; and the arguments about whether Kate should be presented as justifiably admonished or as winning the contest; how the history of how the play was produced (particularly after soldiers came back from fighting World War II) reflected the attitudes about the role of women in society. (One Texas journalist wrote, "That fine old stone-age art of wife-beating is having a distressing renaissance among returning servicemen.")
Speaking of how Shakespeare-inspired plays change over the course of their lives from mere idea to action on a stage: "West Side Story," based of course on "Romeo and Juliet," was originally conceived as a story about Jewish-Christian intermarriage. Who knew? (Well, I didn't, but...)
The chapter on "Shakespeare in Love" by itself is worth the price of admission. Shapiro's analysis touches upon many fault lines in our culture and how they played out in the making of "Shakespeare in Love." He touches upon potentially controversial subjects as adultery, gender roles, same-sex attractions, and class, observing that "If you want to know what a culture is truly anxious about, look at what kind of unions make its audiences uncomfortable... The various endings that were written and discarded in the course of the production provide unusual insight into what sorts of issues had to be quietly suppressed or cleverly evaded. The chapter is filled with fascinating anecdotes about the challenges faced by the writers (a mere month before the movie was scheduled to open in theaters, it still didn't have an ending that tested well with American focus groups), and the many famous people whose lives were touched by the film over the years: Julia Roberts, Brad Pitt, Daniel Day-Lewis, Harvey Weinstein, and others (including cameo appearances by Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton).
The book concludes -- as it opens -- with a consideration of the famous (infamous? certainly controversial) New York City staging of "Julius Caesar" wherein Caesar is made to resemble Donald Trump. It's a hell of a story that speaks volumes about where we are today in our political culture. Shapiro lays out how the production was deliberately staged to force the audience -- that is, a primarily liberal, New York audience -- to do some serious soul-searching about "where their desires to rid the country of a potentially autocratic leader might lead." As things played out, of course, the play became something else entirely when commentators on the Right chose to ignore everything about the show except the scene wherein, as a Breitbart headline put it, "'Trump' Stabbed to Death in Central Park Performance of 'Julius Caesar." As Shapiro notes, outraged spokespeople on the Right asked 'how would they (that is, liberals) react if the play were to show Obama as Julius Caesar,' ignoring -- or oblivious to -- the fact that just such a production had indeed been staged, including in New York City, without outrage on either side in 2012.
I finished "Shakespeare in a Divided America" rather wishing it were longer. One definitely does not have to be a fan of Shakespeare or even theater as a genre to enjoy the book.
The book begins with "Othello." Many productions in antebellum America hedged on whether Othello was truly black or merely a dark-skinned "Moor." (Shapiro writes of how many Southerners, including -- notably -- John Wilkes Booth, were absolutely certain that "Othello was a white man!") This chapter focuses primarily on John Quincy Adams, a complicated man on the matter of race: on one hand, Adams was a vocal advocate for abolition and he defended the Amistad slaves in the trial about their mutiny; on the other hand, he was himself deeply racist. An essay he wrote about the play reads in part, My objections to the character of Desdemona arise not from what Iago, or Roderigo, or Brabantio, or Othello says of her; but from what she herself does. She absconds from her father's house, in the dead of night, to marry a blackamoor. She breaks a father's heart, and covers his noble house with shame, to gratify -- what? Pure love, like that of Juliet or Miranda? No! Unnatural passion; it cannot be named with delicacy. Her admirers now say... that the color of Othello has nothing to do with the passion of Desdemona. No? Why, if Othello had been white, what need would there have been for her running away with him? I was fascinated by Shapiro's description of the interaction between Adams and a young British actress who had performed in the play and was astonished by what he said over dinner.
Another striking point: Theater had quite a different presence in American culture in the 19th century than it does today. Shapiro tells, for example, of the cutthroat competitions between acting companies that led in 1849 to what came to be known as the Astor Place Riots, wherein "more than a score were killed and a hundred or so wounded." Indeed, as Shapiro notes, "between 1816 and 1834 alone there were twenty-nine theater-related riots in New York City." (The words used by contemporaries to talk about the violence were memorable. One actor, looking back on the riot, wrote, "Some were saying that it was a rascally thing that the people should be shot down and murdered in the streets..." 'Rascally' indeed.)
Shapiro's chapter on the famous Booth acting family is equally fascinating. John Wilkes Booth began performing scenes from "Julius Caesar" at the age of 12, and as the years passed Shakespeare's works held a greater and greater influence on his life. Shakespeare's words are everywhere in the things he wrote and said in the days immediately before and after he assassinated President Lincoln. Indeed, he often cast himself in a Shakespearean role in describing his actions, motivations, and circumstances. In a diary entry written as he fled his pursuers he complained about "being hunted like a dog through swamps, woods... wit every man's hand against me... And why? For doing what Brutus was honored for."
As it happens, Lincoln himself was entranced by Shakespeare. He often carried with him an edition of one play or another. Moreover, he had committed to memory countless scenes and speeches from the Bard's plays and was wont to recite them either for the simple joy of it, or because the words seemed apt in a given situation, or because they were a means of giving voice to the sadness he felt as the Civil War dragged on. Lincoln relied on a few dependable listeners, including the young men who worked in the War Department's telegraph office, which he visited on a daily basis... While awaiting news, Lincoln recited Shakespeare from copies of the plays he brought with him. More poignantly, as Shapiro reminds us, shortly before he was killed Lincoln had a disturbing dream wherein he envisioned his own death while in office. The dream haunted him for days, and in speaking of it he spoke of "Banquo's ghost" and quoted Hamlet's famous soliloquy. "To sleep, perchance to dream! Ay, there's the rub," with (as one person later remembered), "a strong accent on the last three words."
Shapiro uses "The Tempest" and the character of Caliban to talk about American attitudes to immigration (as complicated and troubling then as they are now), and how common it was to see the play as being essentially about America, and Shakespeare himself "an American hero."
I could go on like this for a long time, but I'll content myself with pointing to highlights. Shapiro has lively stories and analyses of: how "Taming of the Shrew" was "translated" into the Broadway musical "Kiss Me Kate," which was originally conceived as being multiracial and quite forthcoming in having gay characters but which for some reason (ahem) had an entirely different look when it was finally staged and filmed; and the arguments about whether Kate should be presented as justifiably admonished or as winning the contest; how the history of how the play was produced (particularly after soldiers came back from fighting World War II) reflected the attitudes about the role of women in society. (One Texas journalist wrote, "That fine old stone-age art of wife-beating is having a distressing renaissance among returning servicemen.")
Speaking of how Shakespeare-inspired plays change over the course of their lives from mere idea to action on a stage: "West Side Story," based of course on "Romeo and Juliet," was originally conceived as a story about Jewish-Christian intermarriage. Who knew? (Well, I didn't, but...)
The chapter on "Shakespeare in Love" by itself is worth the price of admission. Shapiro's analysis touches upon many fault lines in our culture and how they played out in the making of "Shakespeare in Love." He touches upon potentially controversial subjects as adultery, gender roles, same-sex attractions, and class, observing that "If you want to know what a culture is truly anxious about, look at what kind of unions make its audiences uncomfortable... The various endings that were written and discarded in the course of the production provide unusual insight into what sorts of issues had to be quietly suppressed or cleverly evaded. The chapter is filled with fascinating anecdotes about the challenges faced by the writers (a mere month before the movie was scheduled to open in theaters, it still didn't have an ending that tested well with American focus groups), and the many famous people whose lives were touched by the film over the years: Julia Roberts, Brad Pitt, Daniel Day-Lewis, Harvey Weinstein, and others (including cameo appearances by Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton).
The book concludes -- as it opens -- with a consideration of the famous (infamous? certainly controversial) New York City staging of "Julius Caesar" wherein Caesar is made to resemble Donald Trump. It's a hell of a story that speaks volumes about where we are today in our political culture. Shapiro lays out how the production was deliberately staged to force the audience -- that is, a primarily liberal, New York audience -- to do some serious soul-searching about "where their desires to rid the country of a potentially autocratic leader might lead." As things played out, of course, the play became something else entirely when commentators on the Right chose to ignore everything about the show except the scene wherein, as a Breitbart headline put it, "'Trump' Stabbed to Death in Central Park Performance of 'Julius Caesar." As Shapiro notes, outraged spokespeople on the Right asked 'how would they (that is, liberals) react if the play were to show Obama as Julius Caesar,' ignoring -- or oblivious to -- the fact that just such a production had indeed been staged, including in New York City, without outrage on either side in 2012.
I finished "Shakespeare in a Divided America" rather wishing it were longer. One definitely does not have to be a fan of Shakespeare or even theater as a genre to enjoy the book.
November 26, 2021
5 stars
Amazing book. This is my first 5 star of the year that isn't a reread... it's the end of November and this is a NON-FICTION. Did I think I'd ever be here? Nope. But James Shapiro absolutely captivated me with his literary criticism and his ability to make an excellent argument about the way Shakespeare has influenced American history. Personally, I'm not American, so I was afraid that I wouldn't care too much about this book (which I picked up based off of my English teacher's recommendation). I was very wrong. As of now I only have 4 Shakespeare plays under my belt, so I was scared I wouldn't be able to understand some allusions to his works. Again, I was wrong. Shapiro made this so accessible and comprehensive. What a fantastic book.
Here is a link to a review that does a great job going a bit more in depth with each chapter of the book.
One issue that I have with many non-fiction books is that sometimes they feel like the argument is made clear in the first three pages of a chapter, and then examples are given for 50 pages. This really tires me out. Another thing that annoys me is when the last few chapters in a non-fiction don't seem to be adding too much to the argument laid out in the first few chapters. Shapiro avoids this by distinctly giving different topics to each chapter and tying them to current problems in the US in the introduction and conclusion.
Here are what I consider highlights from the book:
- everything about the effeminate Romeo and how that role, because it was played so well by a woman, made men question what it means to be a man
- the various ways in which different people interpreted Julius Caesar from the Delacorte modern production to the how John Wilkes Booth to some extent may have seen himself as Brutus... PS now I need to read this play
- The entire The Taming of the Shrew chapter was fascinating in how the play kept getting revised to both appear semi-feminist but appeal to the standards of women abiding by their husband's wishes.
This book came as a surprise to me. I truly, truly recommend it to everyone :)
Amazing book. This is my first 5 star of the year that isn't a reread... it's the end of November and this is a NON-FICTION. Did I think I'd ever be here? Nope. But James Shapiro absolutely captivated me with his literary criticism and his ability to make an excellent argument about the way Shakespeare has influenced American history. Personally, I'm not American, so I was afraid that I wouldn't care too much about this book (which I picked up based off of my English teacher's recommendation). I was very wrong. As of now I only have 4 Shakespeare plays under my belt, so I was scared I wouldn't be able to understand some allusions to his works. Again, I was wrong. Shapiro made this so accessible and comprehensive. What a fantastic book.
Here is a link to a review that does a great job going a bit more in depth with each chapter of the book.
One issue that I have with many non-fiction books is that sometimes they feel like the argument is made clear in the first three pages of a chapter, and then examples are given for 50 pages. This really tires me out. Another thing that annoys me is when the last few chapters in a non-fiction don't seem to be adding too much to the argument laid out in the first few chapters. Shapiro avoids this by distinctly giving different topics to each chapter and tying them to current problems in the US in the introduction and conclusion.
Here are what I consider highlights from the book:
- everything about the effeminate Romeo and how that role, because it was played so well by a woman, made men question what it means to be a man
- the various ways in which different people interpreted Julius Caesar from the Delacorte modern production to the how John Wilkes Booth to some extent may have seen himself as Brutus... PS now I need to read this play
- The entire The Taming of the Shrew chapter was fascinating in how the play kept getting revised to both appear semi-feminist but appeal to the standards of women abiding by their husband's wishes.
This book came as a surprise to me. I truly, truly recommend it to everyone :)
December 27, 2020
What a fascinating thread to follow thru American history. It starts with the Trump/Caesar show in central park and winds its way thru American history using reactions to Shakespeare. The most tedious, but also most interesting, section was with Abraham Lincoln and John Wilkes Booth. I mean, what a perfect story for a premise of the book. Also, the Shakespeare in Love/Harvey Weinstein stuff seemed like a perfect tie-in! And Monica Lewinsky/Clinton--she quoted Romeo and Juliet at him! It's just a lot of interesting tidbits that makes for an interesting (though not particularly insightful) read.
Read
November 17, 2024the perfect book to help me cope with the odd cognitive dissonance of getting a shakespeare degree amidst the political climate of the past week and change. reminded me that my passions matter even if they don’t feel important enough sometimes, and that america is always in times of turmoil and struggle but there’s always times ahead. there’s something comforting about building community through history right now.
October 12, 2020
I picked this one up because it had Shakespeare in the title, I had no clues what the book was about. You could say this was an impulsive buy.
What an interesting read, I wasn’t sure how much I would grasp as I don’t know every play by Shakespeare, and I only know scraps about the man himself, but I was willing to give it a try. After I finished reading this one, I needed a moment to get my bearings as it proposed some very big ideas, well for me.
What helped me read this one is that it was an easier read than I had imagined; very quickly I was reassured that I would be able to comprehend the ideas presented, mind you I do wonder if I’d have felt the same way if it focused on other than:
for me to get the gist of the deeper textures of the ideas James Shapiro presents.
The book has 7 chapters plus a lengthy introduction and a conclusion. Each one is a discourse that presents a cultural disharmony. The topics range from race, to nationality to gender and sexual identity, whilst covering centuries of history at breck-neck speed for background to highlight specific points; these included the parallel interests in Shakespeare between Lincoln and his assassinator, John Wilkes Booth; the American war of Independence; the American Civil war; the women’s movement; and the LGBT social movement.
My immediate response as I was reading this was how original this concept is. Also, in bringing together the reception of Shakespeare’s work from the perspective of the American people’s culture, was a flicker of a light for me to understand (just a little more) how these works continue to be part of our current culture. This book is definitely a different way to get more clued in about what keeps Shakespeare’s work relevant.
I also liked how the book did a full circle in its conclusion, picking up the aftermath of a Julius Caesar production at Central Park that turned seriously ugly and bought up questions about the vulnerability of community theatres and censorship.
Though, I thought James Shapiro kind of went off trek when spending more time than needed on the Weinstein casting-couch saga. In a way I could see its relevance to the making of the movie Shakespeare in Love, as he gives an account of this movie’s initial genesis to its final victory (where it’s the first Shakespeare anything is a major hit, with unexpected turnover, at the Box Office). Like the other chapters it’s packed with info, and though I’ve seen this many times I had no idea how different the initial script was to the final one. Like the other chapters I found it informative and as a read it did what I expect a non-fiction book to do, to widen my world beyond what I know and understand.
What an interesting read, I wasn’t sure how much I would grasp as I don’t know every play by Shakespeare, and I only know scraps about the man himself, but I was willing to give it a try. After I finished reading this one, I needed a moment to get my bearings as it proposed some very big ideas, well for me.
What helped me read this one is that it was an easier read than I had imagined; very quickly I was reassured that I would be able to comprehend the ideas presented, mind you I do wonder if I’d have felt the same way if it focused on other than:
the plays:
As You Like It, Hamlet, Julius Caesar; Macbeth; Romeo and Juliet; Taming of the Shrew; The Tempest; and Twelfth Night
and the movie
Shakespeare in Love
for me to get the gist of the deeper textures of the ideas James Shapiro presents.
The book has 7 chapters plus a lengthy introduction and a conclusion. Each one is a discourse that presents a cultural disharmony. The topics range from race, to nationality to gender and sexual identity, whilst covering centuries of history at breck-neck speed for background to highlight specific points; these included the parallel interests in Shakespeare between Lincoln and his assassinator, John Wilkes Booth; the American war of Independence; the American Civil war; the women’s movement; and the LGBT social movement.
My immediate response as I was reading this was how original this concept is. Also, in bringing together the reception of Shakespeare’s work from the perspective of the American people’s culture, was a flicker of a light for me to understand (just a little more) how these works continue to be part of our current culture. This book is definitely a different way to get more clued in about what keeps Shakespeare’s work relevant.
I also liked how the book did a full circle in its conclusion, picking up the aftermath of a Julius Caesar production at Central Park that turned seriously ugly and bought up questions about the vulnerability of community theatres and censorship.
Though, I thought James Shapiro kind of went off trek when spending more time than needed on the Weinstein casting-couch saga. In a way I could see its relevance to the making of the movie Shakespeare in Love, as he gives an account of this movie’s initial genesis to its final victory (where it’s the first Shakespeare anything is a major hit, with unexpected turnover, at the Box Office). Like the other chapters it’s packed with info, and though I’ve seen this many times I had no idea how different the initial script was to the final one. Like the other chapters I found it informative and as a read it did what I expect a non-fiction book to do, to widen my world beyond what I know and understand.
April 4, 2021
This book hits the perfect history sweet spot for me - a rigorously researched page-turner. Shapiro picks eight moments in US history and uses their very literal connection to a Shakespeare play to illuminate the ways division has manifested in the US. Shapiro doesn't theorize or draw sweeping conclusions, nor does he do detailed analyses of the plays - instead he focuses on the events at hand, and makes history and the plays come alive. The events range from 1833 to 2017, some well-known, some more obscure, but all fascinating. I was surprised that the chapter that seemed the least interesting to me on its face - 1948: Marriage - turned out to be the most intriguing. It connects the 1948 staging of Kiss Me Kate and (of course) the original source, The Taming of the Shew, to post WWII gender politics. Taming's message of female submission was especially resonant in 1948, when the social influencers of the day were in a full court press to get women out of the job market and back in the home so returning veterans could take their jobs. Kiss Me Kate's structure as a play within a play levered both sides of the battle, and added yet another dimension with the parallels between the lead characters and the actors playing them. The 1953 film version gender-washed and white-washed the prickles out of the stage version.
February 23, 2023
An interesting look at the impact Shakespeare's plays have had throughout the history of the US, even if the book is overly weighed down by Trump's dreadful tenure in office.
The chapter on Lincoln was easily the best in the book, while others occasionally dragged. Was it necessary, for example, to devote an entire chapter to the making of the film "Shakespeare in Love"?
Still, an at times fascinating look at how Shakespeare's plays have influenced and been received by some of America's foremost figures.
The chapter on Lincoln was easily the best in the book, while others occasionally dragged. Was it necessary, for example, to devote an entire chapter to the making of the film "Shakespeare in Love"?
Still, an at times fascinating look at how Shakespeare's plays have influenced and been received by some of America's foremost figures.
March 22, 2020
A gripping, intriguing look into how the works of Shakespeare have shaped and reflected the development of the United States. The first few chapters build on primary documents provided in Shapiro’s Shakespeare in America anthology. By the time he gets to the Astor Place Riot, the narrative moves swiftly and cinematically, fully engrossing. The chapter about the development of the musical Kiss Me Kate and it’s reflections of post WWII marital relations was my favorite. The whole book moves at a quick pace, with interesting analysis and quality research. If you’re going to read one Shakespeare book this year, this is the one to choose.
February 18, 2021
As a once-aspiring medievalist, I often faced the challenge of how to connect the stuff I was studying with "the modern world" -- what could an understanding and analysis of the writings of Hildegard of Bingen or Thomas à Kempis or Marco Polo, for example, offer to a 21st-century farmer or priest or businessperson or policymaker or hot dog vendor or whatever? Shapiro's book about Shakespeare in America was right up my alley because it tackles exactly this kind of century-bridging project, showing how, at various turning points in American history, the Elizabethan playwright's works were (mis)interpreted and/or co-opted for various political or cultural ends. It's a collection of vignettes, really, not a deep and sustained analysis -- but what tantalizing vignettes they are! The descriptions of Steve Bannon's botched "Coriolanus" adaptation (where L.A. is threatened with apocalypse by "bad-ass gangstas") and Ulysses S. Grant cross-dressing as Desdemona in a Texas army production of "Othello" are alone worth the price of this book. A fun and fascinating read.
December 30, 2021
The first half was terrific, especially the chapter dealing with Lincoln and John Wilkes Booth. Evidently they were both big fans of "Macbeth." That chapter alone makes the book worthwhile. The title is a bit misleading. It's not some sort of shallow Right - Left thing, but for the most part a straightforward history of Shakespeare in America, and how Americans, actors, others, often projected the times onto the plays they saw or acted in. There are a several mini-biographies of long-forgotten actors that I found fascinating. But as the book moved to modern times the chapters grew drier, which I found odd. For example one chapter got bogged down discussing the various drafts of the forgettable movie "Shakespeare in Love." Shapiro spends too much time discussing the changing actors, changing plot, changing endings, and, Harvey Weinstein. Whatever. That said, Shapiro is a good writer with things to say about Shakespeare and society.
February 11, 2021
This is a book of musings. Yes, there are intriguing historical facts and I did learn of historical events and attitudes that I was not aware of and I always appreciate when that happens. I go into a James Shapiro book with reservations after the Year of Lear fiasco. And yes, he does tend to take leaps beyond the facts we know of Shakespeare and he does have an obvious liberal bias in this one but he still offers food for thought. The chapter on Lincoln is the best of the book but I learned things of history I did not know in every chapter. GUYS! Lincoln could quote from all of the plays but Macbeth was by far his favorite. That made me happy. In fact, Macbeth comes up quite a bit in this book which makes me happy. Above all else I was just reminded that the struggles and divisions we now face are no different than they have ever been and are no different than the struggles and divisions that were being faced in Shakespeare's time. I am grateful to Mr. Shapiro for giving me an insight regarding Shakespeare that I have been seeking for myself for some time. I now understand clearly what the overarching theme, for me, of Shakespeare's work that keeps drawing me back again and again. And, for the record, I would give my eyeteeth to have been in one of those mere thirteen audiences who saw Swinging; the Dream, a Broadway musical based on A Midsummer Night's Dream. Count Basie wrote the music, Louis Armstrong played Bottom, Benny Goodman's band played on one side of the stage and Bud Freeman's on the other. There were star performers center stage, including the Dandridge Sisters, Maxine Sullivan, and a hundred African American jitterbug dancers, choreographed by Agnes de Mille. And the sets were designed by Walt Disney himself. The show was a flop and because it wasn't recorded and only traces of it survive, nobody knows why it failed. There is some evidence that the fact that it starred mostly black performers may have contributed to its demise but I just wish, with all of my heart, that I could have seen that production.
Some points I want to remember:
"Alexis de Tocqueville noted that he first picked up a copy of Henry V in a log cabin while touring the United States in 1831, and added that there 'is hardly a pioneer's hut that does not contain a few odd volumes of Shakespeare.' A half century later, the German writer Karl Knortz said of America that 'there is certainly no land on the whole earth in which Shakespeare and the Bible are held in such high esteem.'"
In so habitually offering competing perspectives, and in assuming that his audiences were capable of appreciating this, Shakespeare was very much of his age, a product of an Elizabethan educational system that trained young minds to argue 'in utramque partem', on both sides of the question. (How depressing it is to me that such capability is no longer available today. Heavy sigh.)
"The way Grant saw it, what started in Corpus Christi would, after horrendous loss of life in the Civil War, end at Appomattox, with the defeat of the South. Mexico, he wrote, was 'of incalculable value; but it might have been obtained by other means. The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times.'"
"William Macready, anticipating method acting by many decades, was probably the first to have said that 'I cannot act Macbeth without being Macbeth.'"
"Defying convention, Lincoln thought Claudius's speech after having killed his brother and seized his wife and crown to be far superior to Hamlet's 'To be, or not to be' soliloquy and wasn't afraid to say so. He told Carpenter that Claudius's soliloquy had always struck him 'as one of the finest touches of nature in the world.' Lincoln then threw 'himself into the very spirit of the scene.' Carpenter reports that Lincoln 'repeated this entire passage from memory, with a feeling and appreciation unsurpassed by anything I ever witnessed upon the stage.'" (I dearly wish I could have witnessed this moment.)
"In the histories and tragedies that Lincoln found so absorbing, Shakespeare put his protagonists, most of them leaders, under unbearable pressure. Among the most powerful moments in these plays are the speeches in which characters confront moral dilemmas and give voice to the guilt and grief that crushes them. That these characters were often evil - Richard III, Macbeth, Claudius - mattered little to Lincoln, what did was there degree of self-awareness, how fully they understood the difficult choices they faced."
Some points I want to remember:
"Alexis de Tocqueville noted that he first picked up a copy of Henry V in a log cabin while touring the United States in 1831, and added that there 'is hardly a pioneer's hut that does not contain a few odd volumes of Shakespeare.' A half century later, the German writer Karl Knortz said of America that 'there is certainly no land on the whole earth in which Shakespeare and the Bible are held in such high esteem.'"
In so habitually offering competing perspectives, and in assuming that his audiences were capable of appreciating this, Shakespeare was very much of his age, a product of an Elizabethan educational system that trained young minds to argue 'in utramque partem', on both sides of the question. (How depressing it is to me that such capability is no longer available today. Heavy sigh.)
"The way Grant saw it, what started in Corpus Christi would, after horrendous loss of life in the Civil War, end at Appomattox, with the defeat of the South. Mexico, he wrote, was 'of incalculable value; but it might have been obtained by other means. The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times.'"
"William Macready, anticipating method acting by many decades, was probably the first to have said that 'I cannot act Macbeth without being Macbeth.'"
"Defying convention, Lincoln thought Claudius's speech after having killed his brother and seized his wife and crown to be far superior to Hamlet's 'To be, or not to be' soliloquy and wasn't afraid to say so. He told Carpenter that Claudius's soliloquy had always struck him 'as one of the finest touches of nature in the world.' Lincoln then threw 'himself into the very spirit of the scene.' Carpenter reports that Lincoln 'repeated this entire passage from memory, with a feeling and appreciation unsurpassed by anything I ever witnessed upon the stage.'" (I dearly wish I could have witnessed this moment.)
"In the histories and tragedies that Lincoln found so absorbing, Shakespeare put his protagonists, most of them leaders, under unbearable pressure. Among the most powerful moments in these plays are the speeches in which characters confront moral dilemmas and give voice to the guilt and grief that crushes them. That these characters were often evil - Richard III, Macbeth, Claudius - mattered little to Lincoln, what did was there degree of self-awareness, how fully they understood the difficult choices they faced."
June 25, 2021
Five out of this book’s seven chapters are stellar, fascinating, 5⭐️. Two chapters are misleading and 0⭐️.
The full title of this book is “Shakespeare in a Divided America: What HIS PLAYS Tell us about our Past and Future” (emphasis HIS PLAYS added). In the chapters that intended to show how America’s views have changed on marriage, adultery, and homosexuality, the author does not use Shakespeare’s own plays. He uses “Kiss Me, Kate,” a Broadway ADAPTION of “The Taming of the Shrew” and the Hollywood movie “Shakespeare in Love,” which is an adaption of nothing. In these particular chapters, the author did not achieve what his title outlined.
In addition, as the book goes on, we see the author’s own leftist political ideology emerge. I just want to read about Shakespeare in an unbiased way.
To conclude, I loved, LOVED 71.4% (that’s 5/7) of the book. The rest should be deleted.
The full title of this book is “Shakespeare in a Divided America: What HIS PLAYS Tell us about our Past and Future” (emphasis HIS PLAYS added). In the chapters that intended to show how America’s views have changed on marriage, adultery, and homosexuality, the author does not use Shakespeare’s own plays. He uses “Kiss Me, Kate,” a Broadway ADAPTION of “The Taming of the Shrew” and the Hollywood movie “Shakespeare in Love,” which is an adaption of nothing. In these particular chapters, the author did not achieve what his title outlined.
In addition, as the book goes on, we see the author’s own leftist political ideology emerge. I just want to read about Shakespeare in an unbiased way.
To conclude, I loved, LOVED 71.4% (that’s 5/7) of the book. The rest should be deleted.
March 27, 2020
From BBC Radio 4:
Leading scholar James Shapiro makes a timely exploration of what Shakespeare’s plays reveal about deep divisions in the United States - from revolutionary times to the present day.
The plays of William Shakespeare are rare common ground in the United States. They are read at school by almost every student, staged in theatres across the country, and valued by conservatives and liberals alike. For well over two centuries, Americans of all stripes - presidents and activists, writers and soldiers - have turned to Shakespeare’s works to explore the nation’s fault lines, including issues such as race, gender, immigration, and free speech.
In a narrative arching across the centuries, from revolutionary times to the present day, James Shapiro traces the unparalleled role of Shakespeare’s 400 year-old tragedies and comedies in illuminating the concerns on which American identity has turned. No writer has been more closely embraced by Americans, or has shed more light on the pressing issues in their history. Shapiro argues it is by better understanding Shakespeare’s role in American life that Americans might begin to mend their bitterly divided land.
Written by James Shapiro
Read by Kerry Shale
Abridged by Kerry Shale and Jill Waters
Producer: Lizzie Davies
A Waters Company production for BBC Radio 4
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000...
Leading scholar James Shapiro makes a timely exploration of what Shakespeare’s plays reveal about deep divisions in the United States - from revolutionary times to the present day.
The plays of William Shakespeare are rare common ground in the United States. They are read at school by almost every student, staged in theatres across the country, and valued by conservatives and liberals alike. For well over two centuries, Americans of all stripes - presidents and activists, writers and soldiers - have turned to Shakespeare’s works to explore the nation’s fault lines, including issues such as race, gender, immigration, and free speech.
In a narrative arching across the centuries, from revolutionary times to the present day, James Shapiro traces the unparalleled role of Shakespeare’s 400 year-old tragedies and comedies in illuminating the concerns on which American identity has turned. No writer has been more closely embraced by Americans, or has shed more light on the pressing issues in their history. Shapiro argues it is by better understanding Shakespeare’s role in American life that Americans might begin to mend their bitterly divided land.
Written by James Shapiro
Read by Kerry Shale
Abridged by Kerry Shale and Jill Waters
Producer: Lizzie Davies
A Waters Company production for BBC Radio 4
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000...
May 29, 2021
A very engaging, very readable, interesting, thought provoking non fiction historical book that comments on Shakespeare’s plays and how they impacted at various times in American society. The book begins in 1833, with comments on ‘Othello’ and President John Adams objections to the play, where a white woman, Desdemona, marries a moor. In 1845 ‘Romeo and Juliet’ is performed with famous actress, Charlotte Cushman, playing the part of Romeo. Romeo’s part is viewed at the time as unmanly. In 1849 activists rebel against a ‘British’ actor performing the part of Macbeth, at the Astor Place Theatre, New York. In 1865 John Wilkes Booth, an actor of Shakespeare plays, particularly enjoys playing Brutus, assassinates President Lincoln. In 1916, a ‘Tempest’ inspired community masque occurs in New York, Shakespeare’s Tercentenary Celebration, occasioning New Yorkers to assert that ‘this land is ours’. 1948 is a time of more women asserting themselves, as in ‘The Taming of the Shrew’. In the year 1998 the author comments on the writing of the movie, ‘Shakespeare in Love’ and the issues of adultery and same sex relationships. The book finishes with the staging of ‘Julius Caesar’ in 2017 and the objections by President Donald Trump supporters to the very ‘Trump’ looking Julius Caesar.
A very worthwhile reading experience.
A very worthwhile reading experience.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 583 reviews