Rating details. More filters.
Sort order. May 25, Cassandra rated it it was ok Shelves: gre , literary-criticism , drama. Oh, this book, this book. It is such an excellent concept and so poorly executed. The largest problem with this book, far overshadowing the quibbles I had with some of the content, is that it was clearly not copyedited.
Punctuation errors abound, and there are sentences which look like they were poorly typset which in this day perhaps means a copy-paste error? There are some truly bad sentences as well, poorly formed or Oh, this book, this book. The actual content itself is difficult to appreciate due to all of these errors, but Marsh really does make an attempt to teach the reader how to read and appreciate Shakespeare, using a variety of tools, and I think that is marvelous.
Where the book falls apart is when Marsh begins writing about the social background; I know it is a short book, and he is not a historian, but he depicts a simplified idea of 'medieval vs. So, the history seemed simplified, incomplete and sometimes outright wrong, and this for me made me trust the rest of the book less. Finally, his overview of the critics was poorly done. I read a critical version of Kate Chopin's The Awakening many years ago that did a fantastic job of this, devoting perhaps a paragraph to various schools of criticism, and then providing longer samples.
It does not do anything to give five critical views of Shakespeare's works and not explain the critical position they are being written from, it is just cacophony of voices. I am also irritated that despite his attempts throughout the book to talk about women, he picks 5 critics, only one of whom is female -- the feminist one, of course. Poetic Soul Cho rated it really liked it Apr 02, Elada marked it as to-read Feb 12, Philosopher marked it as to-read Jun 04, Scott Stephenson added it Feb 16, Geoffrey Davidson marked it as to-read Apr 22, There are no discussion topics on this book yet.
About Nicholas Marsh. Nicholas Marsh. Books by Nicholas Marsh.
Trivia About Shakespeare: Thre No trivia or quizzes yet. Welcome back. Just a moment while we sign you in to your Goodreads account. They also examined the works to determine how "categorical" the writing was. Categorical writing tends to be heavy on nouns, articles, and prepositions, and it indicates an analytic or formal way of thinking. Research has shown that people who rate high on categorical thinking tend to be emotionally distant, applying problem-solving approaches to everyday situations.
People who rate low on categorical thinking, on the other hand, tend to live in the moment and are more focused on social matters. By aggregating dozens of psychological features of each playwright, Boyd and Pennebaker were able to create a psychological signature for each individual.
They were then able to look at the psychological signature of Double Falsehood to determine who the author was most likely to be. Looking at the plays as whole units, the results were clear: Every measure but one identified Shakespeare as the likely author of Double Falsehood. Theobald was identified as the best match only when it came to his use of content words, and even then only by one of the three statistical approaches the researchers used.
When Boyd and Pennebaker broke the play down into acts and analyzed the texts across acts, they found a more nuanced picture. For the first three acts, the analyses continued to identify Shakespeare as the likely author; for the fourth and fifth acts, the measures varied between Shakespeare and Fletcher. Again, Theobald's influence on the text appeared to be very minor. By using measures that tapped into the author's psychological profile, Boyd and Pennebaker were able to see that the author of Double Falsehood was likely sociable and fairly well educated -- findings that don't jibe with accounts of Theobald as well educated but also rigid and abrasive.
Together, these findings clearly show that exploring the psychological dimensions of a literary work can offer even deeper insight in the process of textual analysis.
Materials provided by Association for Psychological Science. Note: Content may be edited for style and length. Science News. Journal Reference : R.
The Main Characteristics of Shakespearean Plays: Comedy, Tragedy, History
Boyd, J. Did Shakespeare Write Double Falsehood? Psychological Science , ; DOI: ScienceDaily, 9 April Association for Psychological Science. Shakespeare's plays reveal his psychological signature.