Fields (Royal Blood
), a high-profile, L.A.-based entertainment lawyer, makes his case in the debate about who Shakespeare really was. Fields doesn't make any original contribution to the controversy; instead, he gives a digest of assorted arguments on both sides, though he sides with the anti-Stratford school. Fields examines the surviving evidence about William Shakespeare, whom he refers to as "the Stratford man." The scattered documentary proofs leave Fields free to conclude that, unlike the great-spirited author of the great works bearing his name, Shakespeare was "acquisitive, selfish, petty, mean-spirited, litigious, and narrow." Fields ascribes all the best qualities to the poems and plays, including The Merchant of Venice
, which he reads (in tune with Al Pacino's recent performance) in an unconvincingly pro-Semitic vein. The book's final third presents the cast of alternate candidates for the works' authorship: Edward de Vere, the earl of Oxford (Fields's own favorite); Francis Bacon; Christopher Marlowe; William Stanley, the earl of Derby; Roger Manners, earl of Rutland; and even Elizabeth I. Fields concludes by hypothesizing that de Vere, a talented poet, anonymously collaborated with Shakespeare (a theatrical professional) on the plays; Fields attributes the low humor and objectionable opinions to the Stratford man and the lofty ideals to his idealized nobleman. In light of Stephen Greenblatt's elegant biography identifying the Stratford man as the great playwright, this won't carry much weight with either scholars or readers. (Mar. 15)
