Scan barcode
neilrcoulter's review against another edition
3.0
James Shapiro’s Shakespeare in a Divided America: What His Plays Tell Us about Our Past and Future is a really interesting way to look at Shakespeare through the lens of American history—and actually, it’s much more a book of vignettes from American history than a book about Shakespeare’s works. The chapters are independent from one another, so readers could easily skip to whichever sections they’re most interested in. Each chapter gives a snapshot of a moment in American history that in some way connects to one or more Shakespeare plays.
Where the book is good, it’s thoroughly fascinating. I especially learned a lot in chapter 3, about the 1849 Astor Place riot; chapter 4, about John Wilkes Booth and Abraham Lincoln; and chapter 5, about immigration issues in the early twentieth century. Some other chapters seemed to me much less insightful—chapter 6 is mostly a summary of the musical Kiss Me, Kate, and chapter 7 of Shakespeare in Love, neither of which I’m particularly interested in. Those chapters had less nuanced engagement with the broader culture.
What comes through in all of the chapters together is the idea that America has always been basically as it is now. We see in one chapter after another that every era of America, not just our own, has been “a divided America.” There’s nothing new under the sun of our current political debates—which is, I suppose, either somewhat relieving or utterly demoralizing.
The book’s subtitle—“What his plays tell us about our past and future”—is overly grandiose and never quite realized. In his final chapter, Shapiro considers the 2017 Delacorte Theater production of Julius Caesar in Central Park, in which Caesar was portrayed to look like then-president Donald Trump. The production attracted a lot of outraged, angry attention from people who misunderstood it (though, to be fair, it’s easy to see why) as encouraging violence against the president and, perhaps, conservative values generally. Shapiro gazes at representatives of the far Right from a distance, never able to see further than a kind of “Wow, these people are just insane, not like me and my literary, artistic friends” perspective. I don’t skew politically conservative myself (I tend toward that most challenging and incomprehensible position of “moderate”; in other words, I don’t fit in anywhere), but I think a deeper understanding of conservative Americans requires something more than just tuning in to Fox & Friends and other conservative media. Shapiro-as-researcher/ethnographer really disappointed me in the conclusion of the book.
On the last couple of pages, Shapiro blithely presumes that “The future of Shakespeare . . . would appear secure. No writer’s work is read by more Americans. . . . Shakespeare alone among all writers was named [by the national Common Core standards] as one whose works ought to be studied by every young American” (220). I think he vastly underestimates the effects of a cultural mindset that sees Shakespeare as a “dead white male” and therefore at least irrelevant, if not harmful, for students to spend time with. And Shapiro overestimates public school teachers’ familiarity with and affection for Shakespeare’s works. That perspective on literature—quick to discard established “dead white male” works in the canon in favor of works by underrepresented authors, under the assumption that the dead white males have little to contribute—is something that I believe comes more from a liberal than a conservative stance. So Shapiro needs to consider more seriously the possibility that it’s not the “deranged Right-wingers” who are removing Shakespeare from America; it may in fact have a lot to do with Tenured Professor World, of which Shapiro is obviously a proud denizen.
Where the book is good, it’s thoroughly fascinating. I especially learned a lot in chapter 3, about the 1849 Astor Place riot; chapter 4, about John Wilkes Booth and Abraham Lincoln; and chapter 5, about immigration issues in the early twentieth century. Some other chapters seemed to me much less insightful—chapter 6 is mostly a summary of the musical Kiss Me, Kate, and chapter 7 of Shakespeare in Love, neither of which I’m particularly interested in. Those chapters had less nuanced engagement with the broader culture.
What comes through in all of the chapters together is the idea that America has always been basically as it is now. We see in one chapter after another that every era of America, not just our own, has been “a divided America.” There’s nothing new under the sun of our current political debates—which is, I suppose, either somewhat relieving or utterly demoralizing.
The book’s subtitle—“What his plays tell us about our past and future”—is overly grandiose and never quite realized. In his final chapter, Shapiro considers the 2017 Delacorte Theater production of Julius Caesar in Central Park, in which Caesar was portrayed to look like then-president Donald Trump. The production attracted a lot of outraged, angry attention from people who misunderstood it (though, to be fair, it’s easy to see why) as encouraging violence against the president and, perhaps, conservative values generally. Shapiro gazes at representatives of the far Right from a distance, never able to see further than a kind of “Wow, these people are just insane, not like me and my literary, artistic friends” perspective. I don’t skew politically conservative myself (I tend toward that most challenging and incomprehensible position of “moderate”; in other words, I don’t fit in anywhere), but I think a deeper understanding of conservative Americans requires something more than just tuning in to Fox & Friends and other conservative media. Shapiro-as-researcher/ethnographer really disappointed me in the conclusion of the book.
On the last couple of pages, Shapiro blithely presumes that “The future of Shakespeare . . . would appear secure. No writer’s work is read by more Americans. . . . Shakespeare alone among all writers was named [by the national Common Core standards] as one whose works ought to be studied by every young American” (220). I think he vastly underestimates the effects of a cultural mindset that sees Shakespeare as a “dead white male” and therefore at least irrelevant, if not harmful, for students to spend time with. And Shapiro overestimates public school teachers’ familiarity with and affection for Shakespeare’s works. That perspective on literature—quick to discard established “dead white male” works in the canon in favor of works by underrepresented authors, under the assumption that the dead white males have little to contribute—is something that I believe comes more from a liberal than a conservative stance. So Shapiro needs to consider more seriously the possibility that it’s not the “deranged Right-wingers” who are removing Shakespeare from America; it may in fact have a lot to do with Tenured Professor World, of which Shapiro is obviously a proud denizen.
andtheitoldyousos's review against another edition
5.0
The 2016 election: we will eventually be far away from that time, but while we wait to heal we will continue to publish works - everything from tweets to films- about how it shaped our current situation.
In 2017, the Delacorte Theater in Central Park staged a production of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Shakespeare had been done live in Central Park for years. Julius Caesar had been performed steadily around the world since it debuted in 1599. Caesar has taken on many depictions throughout the years; within the last half a century he has been made to resemble Huey Long, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher, and Barack Obama. This time, Caesar was a stand-in for Trump; tall, blonde, and orange.
You can imagine how that went over. Trump's supporters, unable to differentiate art from life, lost their collective minds over a theater company depicting his brutal death on stage every night- never mind the fact that it was not Trump dying; it was Caesar- who was *spoiler alert* 100% stabbed to death centuries ago. Conservative media exploded, and threats from Trump supporters flooded not just Delacorte's inboxes but that of theaters all over the United States. Threats of murder, hellfire, and rape- yes, people sent emails to theater companies threatening to rape them over the presentation of Trump as Caesar- filled voicemail boxes across the country. The production went on none the less. Shakespeare always survives American turmoil.
You don't need me to tell you that our current situation is bad, and James Shapiro is acutely aware of the roiling mess that we currently inhabit. Shapiro is using this moment to focus a lens back on American history in general; Shakespeare has always been a part of the political realm; people on both sides of the aisle have venerated, revered, reviled, and formed his words to their fancy since before America was America.
Shapiro makes a point early on as to why Shakespeare may have been so beloved by early settlers throughout North America: the bible. The King James Bible was written in 1611, and the style of language between Shakespeare and the contemporary gospel was the same; people felt that Shakespeare spoke to them in the same voice that the bible used. Cabins and classrooms across America always held at least two books: the bible and a collection of Shakespeare.
Instead of writing about American history as a whole, Shapiro wisely chooses to highlight the roles of Shakespeare's work throughout particularly fraught and meaningful moments across our short history. We have been divided for quite some time over quite a few things. Shakespeare in a Divided America focuses specifically on miscegenation, manifest destiny, class warfare, assassination, immigration, marriage, and adultery, and how leaders, firebrands, stalwarts, scholars, and many others found inspiration and permission in Shakespeare's words to press their own agendas (some noble, some silly, some just plain hateful) onto others.
I was particularly taken by Shapiro's breakdown of the role of toxic masculinity in Andrew Jackson's White House that so eerily predicted today's predicaments. This book provided welcome doses of reason and clarity around the woes of the world at large, and I do hope that we can learn from them and finally, eventually move on to something better. Now, when we look back, we find ourselves gazing at our own reflections.
In 2017, the Delacorte Theater in Central Park staged a production of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Shakespeare had been done live in Central Park for years. Julius Caesar had been performed steadily around the world since it debuted in 1599. Caesar has taken on many depictions throughout the years; within the last half a century he has been made to resemble Huey Long, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher, and Barack Obama. This time, Caesar was a stand-in for Trump; tall, blonde, and orange.
You can imagine how that went over. Trump's supporters, unable to differentiate art from life, lost their collective minds over a theater company depicting his brutal death on stage every night- never mind the fact that it was not Trump dying; it was Caesar- who was *spoiler alert* 100% stabbed to death centuries ago. Conservative media exploded, and threats from Trump supporters flooded not just Delacorte's inboxes but that of theaters all over the United States. Threats of murder, hellfire, and rape- yes, people sent emails to theater companies threatening to rape them over the presentation of Trump as Caesar- filled voicemail boxes across the country. The production went on none the less. Shakespeare always survives American turmoil.
You don't need me to tell you that our current situation is bad, and James Shapiro is acutely aware of the roiling mess that we currently inhabit. Shapiro is using this moment to focus a lens back on American history in general; Shakespeare has always been a part of the political realm; people on both sides of the aisle have venerated, revered, reviled, and formed his words to their fancy since before America was America.
Shapiro makes a point early on as to why Shakespeare may have been so beloved by early settlers throughout North America: the bible. The King James Bible was written in 1611, and the style of language between Shakespeare and the contemporary gospel was the same; people felt that Shakespeare spoke to them in the same voice that the bible used. Cabins and classrooms across America always held at least two books: the bible and a collection of Shakespeare.
Instead of writing about American history as a whole, Shapiro wisely chooses to highlight the roles of Shakespeare's work throughout particularly fraught and meaningful moments across our short history. We have been divided for quite some time over quite a few things. Shakespeare in a Divided America focuses specifically on miscegenation, manifest destiny, class warfare, assassination, immigration, marriage, and adultery, and how leaders, firebrands, stalwarts, scholars, and many others found inspiration and permission in Shakespeare's words to press their own agendas (some noble, some silly, some just plain hateful) onto others.
I was particularly taken by Shapiro's breakdown of the role of toxic masculinity in Andrew Jackson's White House that so eerily predicted today's predicaments. This book provided welcome doses of reason and clarity around the woes of the world at large, and I do hope that we can learn from them and finally, eventually move on to something better. Now, when we look back, we find ourselves gazing at our own reflections.
marrry's review against another edition
4.0
I am a big Shakespeare fan and really loved reading and learning about the cultural context for some of the plays and how they were used and what they represented in different times and situations in American history. Shapiro is so articulate and the material is so thoughtful and interesting, I would read this one again and again.
amymo73's review against another edition
4.0
What I am loving about the Chautauqua books is that I'm picking up some things that are fascinating and I love but that I wouldn't necessarily have found on my own. And isn't that why we like lists? To find new things?
I bought a copy of this at the Institute earlier this month and I LOVED it. I wasn't sure what to expect, but Shapiro does a great job organizing -- taking specific events/issues in historical context and the ways that Shakespeare played a part in the debate. And isn't it interesting how we use Shakespeare in our communication about things which are important to us? And how interesting it is that more than 300 years later there is still plenty of room for interpretation. Truly, I love that about work. And I realized how little Shakespeare I've really read or understand. Also how much we are still debating, arguing, the same topics just with different costumes and set design.
My favorite parts:
"Shakespeare's habit of presenting both sides of an argument. ... Shakespeare was very much of his age, a product of an Elizabethan educational system that trained young minds to argue 'in utramaque partem' on both sides of the question."
I was fascinated by the chapter on Class Warfare and the history of the theater in New York.
"At stake were competing notions of what sort of behavior was acceptable in a theater, as well as diverging American and British approaches to Shakespeare."
"The violence at the Opera House brought into sharp relief the growing problem of income inequality in an America that preferred the fiction that it was still a classless society."
"What did change in the aftermath of the Astor Place was that violent protests in theaters were no longer tolerated. When competing claims over freedom of speech collided, the right of actors to be heard would prevail over the right of protesters to shout them down. ... Theatergoing in American would henceforth be a quieter and more passive experience."
The chapter on the immigration debate -- so topical now:
"Community in Shakespeare's comedies depends -- much like immigration policy -- on who is barred admission as much as who is accepted. ... A more hopeful community at the end of a Shakespeare comedy typically depends on somebody's exclusion."
"The real aim of restrictionists was to harden American hearts against an open-door policy, to no longer think of their country as a refuge."
"The playing of 'The Star-Spangled Banner' was both new and controversial. It was only in this year that President Wilson had ordered that it be performed at military events and recent efforts in Baltimore (where its lyrics were written) to impose a fine on anyone who refused to stand when it was played were met by resistance to 'the folly of trying to instill patriotism by law, to create reverence by statute.'"
What I did like about the 1998 chapter about the movie Shakespeare in Love is the way he treated Harvey Weinstein and showed him through a lens of what we now know about him. I'm grateful he spent time on that.
"At stake in what sort of union is deemed acceptable is how tolerant a community imagines itself to be. Comedies tend to be more socially conservative than tragedies. ... If you want to know what a culture is truly anxious about, look at what kinds of unions make its audiences uncomfortable."
I bought a copy of this at the Institute earlier this month and I LOVED it. I wasn't sure what to expect, but Shapiro does a great job organizing -- taking specific events/issues in historical context and the ways that Shakespeare played a part in the debate. And isn't it interesting how we use Shakespeare in our communication about things which are important to us? And how interesting it is that more than 300 years later there is still plenty of room for interpretation. Truly, I love that about work. And I realized how little Shakespeare I've really read or understand. Also how much we are still debating, arguing, the same topics just with different costumes and set design.
My favorite parts:
"Shakespeare's habit of presenting both sides of an argument. ... Shakespeare was very much of his age, a product of an Elizabethan educational system that trained young minds to argue 'in utramaque partem' on both sides of the question."
I was fascinated by the chapter on Class Warfare and the history of the theater in New York.
"At stake were competing notions of what sort of behavior was acceptable in a theater, as well as diverging American and British approaches to Shakespeare."
"The violence at the Opera House brought into sharp relief the growing problem of income inequality in an America that preferred the fiction that it was still a classless society."
"What did change in the aftermath of the Astor Place was that violent protests in theaters were no longer tolerated. When competing claims over freedom of speech collided, the right of actors to be heard would prevail over the right of protesters to shout them down. ... Theatergoing in American would henceforth be a quieter and more passive experience."
The chapter on the immigration debate -- so topical now:
"Community in Shakespeare's comedies depends -- much like immigration policy -- on who is barred admission as much as who is accepted. ... A more hopeful community at the end of a Shakespeare comedy typically depends on somebody's exclusion."
"The real aim of restrictionists was to harden American hearts against an open-door policy, to no longer think of their country as a refuge."
"The playing of 'The Star-Spangled Banner' was both new and controversial. It was only in this year that President Wilson had ordered that it be performed at military events and recent efforts in Baltimore (where its lyrics were written) to impose a fine on anyone who refused to stand when it was played were met by resistance to 'the folly of trying to instill patriotism by law, to create reverence by statute.'"
What I did like about the 1998 chapter about the movie Shakespeare in Love is the way he treated Harvey Weinstein and showed him through a lens of what we now know about him. I'm grateful he spent time on that.
"At stake in what sort of union is deemed acceptable is how tolerant a community imagines itself to be. Comedies tend to be more socially conservative than tragedies. ... If you want to know what a culture is truly anxious about, look at what kinds of unions make its audiences uncomfortable."
josiemi's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
3.25
This collection of essays feels extremely academic and is a great academic resource, however, for the casual reader who is interested in Shakespeare and the impact of Shakespeare on different parts of global society, I found it to be a bit dry. Interesting information, but dry.
captaincocanutty's review against another edition
5.0
Very interesting, easy to follow explanation of how Shakespeare's plays mirror controversial topics all throughout America's history. Provides enough background information if you're not familiar with the topic or plays, but not so much that it's burdensome to read.
cafffine's review against another edition
4.0
must read for shakespeare fans in america. So informative and accessible. I’ll be thinking about president Grant cross-dressed as Desdemona forever.
kindledspiritsbooks's review against another edition
4.0
I love reading about how certain pieces of culture have been received over time and Shakespeare provides incredibly rich material for books of this nature. Because his works are so universally considered to be worthy of attention and study, figures throughout history have been influenced by his writing and have used his plays as tools of influence. James Shapiro, a leading Shakespeare scholar, traces the history of Shakespeare’s reception in America and how Americans across the political spectrum have turned to Shakespeare for inspiration in how to address the key issues of their day. From John Quincy Adams railing against Desdemona’s character because she dared to fall in love with a black man, to John Wilkes Booth’s and Lincoln’s shared fasciation with Shakespeare, to the fierce debate between writers and producers on how to end Shakespeare in Love all the way up to a controversial performance of Julius Caesar in 2017, in which a Trump-like Caesar is assassinated, that sparked a right wing firestorm. What makes this book fascinating is how it shines a light on the myriad of people from across the political spectrum who have invoked Shakespeare throughout history, sometimes reading the very same plays in completely different ways depending on their personal beliefs. However, this makes Shapiro’s conclusion all the more concerning. He fears that those on the right may have abandoned Shakespeare, finding him to be too representative of the ‘liberal cultural elite’ that they oppose and without common culture to act as a ‘canary in the coal mine’, Shapiro suspects that American will only grow more divided. This book, while it is dense in parts, would be much enjoyed by lovers of Shakespeare or politics (and absolutely ideal for people like me, who love both).
lea_fortkamp's review against another edition
4.0
Love the bard, but I do rather dislike the world we’re living in. This smart work made both of those truths more clear.