How Shakespeare Changed Everything

by Stephen Marche

Esquire columnist Stephen Marche gives an expansive and exciting look at William Shakespeare’s pervasive influence on every aspect of modern culture—showing us how we can find Shakespeare even where we least expect him. In the spirit of Alain de Botton’s How Proust Can Change Your Life, Marche reveals how Shakespeare’s influence is everywhere—from politics to psychotherapy, broadway to botany, emo teenagers to outrageous baby names, even zoology (did you know it’s the Bard who is responsible for the starlings terrorizing New York City’s Central Park?). Fans of literary trivia and readers of Stephen Greenblatt’s Will in the World and Bill Bryson’s Shakespeare: The World as Stage will be captivated by Marche’s artful reading of how every day can bring a fresh reading of the Immortal Bard of Avon.

Genres: Nonfiction, Shakespeare, History, Biography, Essays, Writing, Literature

224 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2011

About the author

Stephen Marche is the author of The Unmade Bed (2016), The Hunger of the Wolf (2015), Love and the Mess We’re In (2013), How Shakespeare Changed Everything (2012), Shining at the Bottom of the Sea (2007) and Raymond and Hannah (2005). He's written for nearly every newspaper and magazine you can name.

Reviews

[Joel · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'd heard some positive noise about Marche's book, and at first glance that noise seemed well-founded. Marche clearly loves Shakespeare and wants to share his excitement with the rest of us. To create a facade of respectability in his life while embarking on a career as a novelist, Marche pursued a PhD; his subject of research was Shakespeare. "I chose Shakespeare because I thought he would never bore me. And I was right. He has never bored me." Likewise, Marche never bored me. He did frustrate and disappoint me though.

I expected something great, or at least something to enrich my appreciation of Shakespeare. Instead I found myself shuffling through pages of self-love and careless claims, thinking, "There are some great facts in here, and I love the idea of this book; I just wish it was a different book." Honestly, you may be better off reading this page out of a young woman's moleskine that circulated the internet a while ago. Marche seems to be more interested in how he says things than what he says; in other words, his attempt to make his prose exciting often overwhelms moderation, or logical consistency.

The book opens,

William Shakespeare was the most influential person who ever lived.

Wow! That is a very big claim! Now, Marche does go to some lengths to show Shakespeare's influence. But by the end of the book you are no where close to being able to say, "Shakespeare was the most influential person who ever lived." You are very comfortable saying, "Shakespeare has been very influential, moreso than I thought." But that's a very different thing. There is no lateral reasoning. Marche never once examines other influential characters of history, or even Western Civilization, comparing them to Shakespeare to see how their influence measures up. It boils down to saying, "Twilight sure is popular. It must be the most popular series of books, ever." Marche's philosophy of history is weirdly historicist: Since a great deal of culture today contains traces of Shakespearean influence, Shakespeare is the overarching influence on modern culture, freeing him from the bonds of the 17th century. And since he came later than those who made his existence and career possible, he is greater than them. So forget Jesus Christ who founded the Church that developed Western Civilization, leading to Shakespeare's England, and certainly forget looming figures like Constantine, Theodosius, Ambrose, Aquinas, Catherine, Hus, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli. Forget everything. Shakespeare was the most influential person who ever lived.

Marche's broad, much-assuming proclamations are not all that serious. Some are throwaway lines that he clearly threw into the text to make it sound cooler. Somehow these are even more annoying than the philosophically retarded phrases. "The best murder mysteries are always ghost stories." (Really?) "The minor industry of mugs and magnets offers pearls of Shakespearean wisdom extracted from context and often misquoted. They drive me insane." (Relax, Steve. No one cares if a pub in Ontario misinterprets the definition of "small beer.") "I adore the sheer number of our words. Every time I write, I feel I'm sitting down at an old, beautiful, immense organ with infinite modes and registers and effects." (First of all, no you don't. Second of all, shut up.) "The sexiest women's clothes look best on girls with whom it would be illegal to have sex." (Whoops! That is very, very weird and you need to go to jail now.)

You know how annoying it is when people use the word "literally" over and over with no basic understanding of what that word means? Marche drags that concept through a fifteen line paragraph:

The opening scene of Romeo and Juliet shows young men terrorizing the streets of Verona with instantly recognizable teenage nastiness.... They remind me exactly of a group of teenagers I saw once at a football game: punching each other repeatedly drunk, farting in each other's faces, describing an overweight girl as "more cushion for the pushin'," totally gross. These boys didn't just resemble Samson and Gregoy from act 1, scene 1 of Romeo and Juliet. They were identical.

No, they were not identical. Maybe the resembled Samson and Gregory from act 1, scene 1 of Romeo and Juliet, but unless those teens exist only in your R&J fan fic they are emphatically not identical to those fictional characters. I know I'm going long on particular qualms with Marche's prose (and there are more, I'm practicing restraint over here), but there's one more. He tries to be cute, writing

The Donkey Show in New York stages A Midsummer Night's Dream in a seventies-style disco, complete with classic dance tunes, nudity, and drugs. I 'll leave you to guess the salient Donkeyesque feature of the star performer. Women go to the play for stagette parties.

But then on the very next page, he writes, "[Shakespeare] would have loved the nubile women and the huge swinging penis in The Donkey Show for sure." What exactly is he leaving to us to guess? "Just how huge is huge?"?

Maybe I'm being self-indulgent cherry-picking bad phrasing from the book. But I think it conveys a deeper problem with the work. It's not just bad prose; he makes huge claims not because they are true, but because they sound good. Othello is the reason Barack Obama not only could be, but was elected president. ("That's the 2008 election in a Hollywood pitch: Othello with a black wife." [Pardon: What? Othello with a black wife isn't the play Othello.]) John Wilkes Booth killed Abraham Lincoln because he truly understood Julius Caesar. ("John Wilkes Booth was a better interpreter of Julius Caesar than his brother Edwin. He took his interpretation into the world.")

And, frankly, Marche's reasoning is just bad. At one point he attempts a mediation on Hamlet's own meditation on death, with Yorick's skull. Referring to both Caesar and Alexander the Great, Hamlet says,

Imperious Caesar, dead and turned to clay,
Might stop a hole to keep the wind away.
O, that that earth, which kept the world in awe,
Should patch a wall t'expel the winter's flaw.

Marche clumsily interprets this,

Hamlet reverses the usual spiritual practice of the memento mori; instead of the skull's making him less materialistic, it makes him more so; it shows us that even gods among men such as Alexander and Caesar are just mud. He uses the skull as a symbol of the shallowness of even the most profound human matters. He makes a mockery of making a mockery of the pointlessness of human concerns. He uses the device of religion to arrive at the basest kind of crudity.

This passage begs the question: What does Stephen Marche think memento mori means? In two words, one poetic phrase, memento mori sums up for us what is told to us when we receive ashes on our foreheads at Ash Wednesday: "Remember, O man, that dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return." How Marche thinks the becoming of Alexander and Julius to bungs is an encouragement to materialism I do not know. If anything this soliloquy is a strong underscoring of memento mori, a better way of saying, "This jester became dirt as did emperors of old; we become nothing, how should we think ourselves anything? Death renders us all equal, so let us live in life as if there we may make a difference." Death is the inevitable approach; let our actions here on earth define us. This is the thought bouncing through Hamlet's skull. This is memento mori; what Marche thinks it is, I don't know. But he's clearly confused.

I gave a report in a class on Shakespeare, once, on As You Like It, in which I focused on the Catholic imagery within Arden Forest. The Professor told me afterward, "You can find any Shakespeare you want to find." I looked for the Catholic Shakespeare, and I found him. Marche finds the hedonist, and commits to this being the only viable Shakespeare. Sonnet 129 becomes a meditation on semen. Shakespeare and Freud would have been best pals. Marche skews disguises in the Bard's plays into an open endorsement of transvestism. Even as Marche explains the difficulty (and ultimate futility) nailing down actual historical information on Shakespeare, he forms his own Shakespeare into what he wants Shakespeare to be.

This is a book I wish was good. I hoped it would be an excellent exploration into Shakespeare's long-lasting influence, a reminder of what we owe the man. And there are some wonderful facts and anecdotes of that; Shakespeare's responsibility in introducing starlings to North America, say, or the vocabulary he's given us.

[Elizabeth McCollum · Rating 1 out of 5]

Well, it started out really well, lots of interesting stuff about the first African-American actor to play Othello, long before Paul Robeson, back in the 19th century. Really good stuff. Then he got to talking about sex in Shakespeare's plays and he says, in the first paragraph of the chapter, "The sexual revolution of the sixties and the smaller sexual revolution we are undergoing now, with the normalization of homosexuality and every other kind of freakishness, both derive directly from Freud's humanistic, unembarrassed approach to desire. That humanism and that lack of embarrassment are Shakespeare's." "Homosexuality and every other kind of freakishness", eh? You just lost me, bub. Do not equate my love for my wife with freakishness, okay? That does not wash for me. Maybe you're freaked out by it, but if so then, you're going to have some trouble with that humanism you're talking about. He continues to seem rather uncomfortable with the topic he's dealing with in this chapter. But that one statement left a really bad taste in my mouth, so I'm probably not going to finish this book. Which is a pity, because it has a lot of worthwhile information in it, and I like the premise. But the almost unconscious slur on my inborn sexuality turned me right off.

[Sheryl · Rating 2 out of 5]

I could tell early on this book was going to annoy me. I actually didn’t mind the “aren’t I witty” prose much, or the fact that his claim that “William Shakespeare is the most influential person who ever lived” is absurd. Fans are fannish, and I’m fine with that.

But he opens his first chapter with the Paul Robeson quote, “Othello has taken away from me all kinds of fears, all sense of limitation, and all racial prejudice. Othello has made me free.” And then he proceeds to insist, “Othello was a racist play in its original conception and incarnation. For Sure.” And “The inner truth of Othello is the unavoidable savagery of his blackness.” And supports his claim that “Shakespeare keeps hammering home the town’s disgust with mixed-race sex” with a list of racist quotes, all spoken by Iago.

In actual fact, except for Iago and Desdemona’s daddy, just about the entire town is fine with “mixed-race sex”, agreeing with the Duke when he says, “If virtue no delighted beauty lack, Your son-in-law is far more fair than black.” While not disputing the “white is good, black is bad” trope of Shakespeare's time, the Duke’s basic argument is that Othello’s character is far more important than the color of his skin.

When Marche describes Obama’s 2008 campaign as “Othello with a black wife,” my immediate thought was, “And without Iago,” at which point I realized that throughout the entire chapter, Iago is never mentioned, either by name or by role. Which was rather a mind boggling realization – how can you even discuss the play Othello without discussing Iago? No wonder that chapter seemed vaguely incoherent.

OTOH, I quite enjoyed the next chapter, on Shakespeare’s use of words, although the best bits of that he’s quoting someone else. But then he goes off the rails again in the third chapter, with sex as its main theme. Marche writes as if he has no knowledge whatsoever of Chaucer, or of innumerable other writers of the Medieval and Renaissance eras who were just as prone to sexual puns and often more graphic than Shakespeare. And he manages to give that impression despite saying that more modern times were “ludicrously hung up” and claiming that Shakespeare’s culture was “a festival of carnality”!

Marche regularly manages to present his views of the various plays as definitive – he puzzles over the fact that Paul Robeson felt empowered by playing Othello, but never mentions alternate understandings of the play that would help explain Robeson’s feelings – while at the same time arguing that Shakespeare is for all times and all peoples, because his stories can be re-interpreted, or outright changed, to fit different cultures. Although his example of the Tiv, who have to essentially rewrite the play so it makes sense within their cultural values, doesn’t do a lot to support his case. He seems to forget that Shakespeare was rewriting tales others had written; what made the stories his were the details and the language, which the Tiv were either changing or weren’t exposed to. Major disconnect between his evidence and what he’s trying to prove, there.

Later, he tells us that Tolstoy was outraged by the fact that Shakespeare’s plays lacked religion, but doesn’t mention the fact that, in Shakespeare’s day, playwrights were forbidden from any kind of religious argument, and that every play had to be okayed by a government censor before being performed. Shakespeare and his contemporaries couldn’t have discussed anything religiously pertinent if they wanted to. Whether Tolstoy had considered that or not, Marche should have.

I expect a fan who basically introduces himself by saying he’s got a doctorate in the subject to know Shakespeare well enough to recognize that Shakespeare’s plot lines are just about all from somewhere else. I expect consideration of the idea that Iago’s jealousy and manipulation might be at the heart of Othello, rather than presenting the play as a racist screed flawed by Shakespeare’s inherent humanity. I’d like to see the author show some awareness of the fact that Brutus was presented as a gullible idiot in Julius Caesar, or of the idea that Shakespeare might have seen Brutus’ actions as neither necessary nor heroic. And so on.

Wouldn't call this book a waste of time, and don't regret reading it, but not overly impressed, either.

[Shirlei · Rating 4 out of 5]

So, I've read "How Shakespeare changed everything" by Stephen Marche...

Although, I have thought that this reading was a little complicated to me (I'm Brazilian, my mother tongue is Portuguese) with all these sentences in ancient English (circa 1500 English) the book shows us a Shakespeare that we don't see everyday, like:
- birds that are overflowing New York city or;
- the name Jessica (that was used for the first time in "The Merchant of Venice") and became an epidemy in Brazil in the 90's;
- certain idioms that we use daily and that were created by Shakespeare, like "The lady doth protest too much, me thinks" (I love this one!)
- and the list goes on with very interesting facts...

For those who love the bard, or for those who, simply, love English, the book is charming and show us how much the queen's tongue owns to this wonderful, mysterious and genius man!

[Kirk Johnson · Rating 3 out of 5]

You can tell at a glance that Marche isn't Harold Bloom or anyone trying to be - it's not his audience - but the real problem is that the author takes a hyperbolic title and tries to run with it. So what could have been a somewhat random but interesting evening with a friend who's batshit crazy about Shakespeare but speaks sanely, you end up with a man too often overreaching in support of his theme. Not that this book is uninteresting, nor is it without value, but it could have been more if it had tried for less.

[Särah Nour · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you’re not a Shakespeare fan, you will almost certainly become one upon reading Stephen Marche’s How Shakespeare Changed Everything. Marche dexterously crafts an ode of rhyme and reason to the Bard’s towering influence on the working-day world, from the words and phrases he coined to his contribution to the Civil Rights Movement to his popularity among the Nazi party. In one fell swoop, this book compellingly chronicles the ubiquitous presence of the Bard in our politics, our language and our sex lives.

How Shakespeare Changed Everything is a collection of essays, starting with one on the influence of Othello on the integration of African-Americans in the theater business. While the title character was often played in blackface, Paul Robeson made a name for himself as the infamous Moor, and went on to become an important figure in Civil Rights campaigns nationwide. Marche also makes the case that John Wilkes Booth was inspired to assassinate President Lincoln by Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. Among the more ingrained influences is Shakespeare’s coining of over 1,700 words and countless phrases that have a strong presence in our language today. These essays culminate into a generous homage to arguably the most influential writer that ever lived.

Citing Shakespeare’s bold refusal to censor the violence and bawdy humor in his plays, among the more histrionic of Marche’s claims is that Shakespeare influenced Freud’s studies of human sexuality, and, by extension, the way we view sex today. The custom of teen girls swooning over celebrity heartthrobs allegedly began with Romeo and Juliet, which idolized star-crossed flaming youth. Claims such as these may require readers to suspend disbelief; however, this does not sully the book’s quality as a whole.

Besides revealing little-known trivia and fun facts about Shakespeare, Marche also delves into persisting mysteries about the Bard: how he looked like, for one, and how he really spelled his name, as well as the circumstances surrounding his marriage. Among the more humorous of Marche’s tidbits is Leo Tolstoy’s passionate hatred for the Bard and the book he wrote detailing all his failures as a writer, making him out to be the devil incarnate. Marche covers a lot of ground, from proven facts to myths and speculations to zealous critical acclaim and naysayers alike, resulting in a well-rounded and accessibly written portrait of a man so renowned and yet so mysterious.

While slightly farfetched in some of its claims, How Shakespeare Changed Everything is a fun, enlightening read and a goldmine for Shakespeare fans, who will surely get their money’s worth. It’s a foregone conclusion that Shakespeare has left his undeniable mark in many aspects of our daily lives, both large- and small-scale, and Marche’s faithful tribute to the Bard is to be admired, despite an exaggerated claim here and there.

[Milva · Rating 1 out of 5]

I DNF'd this book as it is ridiculous. Not only the author described homosexuality as freakiness or having anal and oral sex as freaky daily show but he also insisted on Shakespeare having invented psychology, psychoanalysis and teenagers. Because why not. He also lives in a kind of bubble where everyone has a Western education so Hamlet's famous monologue we all hear in our 'schoolmaster' s voice'. Plus some unnecessary anecdote about the actor playing Othello putting his enormous hand between legs of his fellow actress which was like flying next to the piece about Obama. I'm like WHY. There must be a better way of writing about the sexuality in Shakespeare's plays than this as it left me feeling dirty and sticky with a bad aftertaste. So no, thank you, I won't finish this book.

[Linda · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's evident from page 1 that Stephen Marche is a great admirer of Shakespeare. How fortunate that Marche is a good enough writer himself to convey some of his own enthusiasm to his reader. How Shakespeare Changed Everything is a carefully researched compendium of ten essays, each of which describes The Bard's influence on contemporary issues. Among the topics are race, sex, adolescence, starlings (yes, the birds), history, and Shakespeare's identity. Marche contends, and makes a good case of it, that Freud developed his psycho-sexual theories as a result of Shakespeare's treatment of sex, especially Oedipal themes, in his work. By citing passages from Romeo and Juliet, Marche shows how today's concept of adolescence came about. He is convincing in his belief that John Wilkes Booth's formulated his assassination plans based upon his own experiences acting in Julius Caesar. And he includes a fascinating chapter about all the words that we use as colloquialisms today without thinking about their origins - Shakespeare is credited with coining and/or recording hundreds of them. Marche includes a humorous paragraph compiled by journalist Bernard Levin, in which strings of them are joined into a coherent paragraph.

How Shakespeare Changed Everything is a lighthearted but heartfelt homage to the greatest, most enduring writer/poet in the English language. If you're an admirer as well, you'll enjoy this little (190 pages) volume.

[Christine · Rating 4 out of 5]

True fact - The first performance of Romeo and Juliet in America had a son playing Romeo to his mother's Juliet.

Appartently having sisters play both parts was also common. I wasn't the only one who found Romeo to be a bit of a wuss.

This book explains and examines the influence that Shakespeare has had not only on literature and language, but on society in general. Some of the facts, I already knew, such as the connection to starlings. Some I didn't or at least didn't really think about - Shakespeare and teens. Sometimes Marche seems to be pushing too much, but his comments are thoughtful and he deals not only with history but why we should read Tolstoy's thoughts on the bard.

An enjoyable read.

[aks · Rating 2 out of 5]

Probably more of a 2.5

This book made a lot of bold claims, but it did not adequately back them up. Sure, it cited some proof of Shakespeare being influential, but not to the extent that the conclusions this author reached were justified.

There were some interesting facts in here and it was an easy, short read so it wasn't completely without merit, but the overconfidence was frequently too annoying to see past.

[Mark Valentine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Marche's primer on Shakespeare serves as the ideal Shakespeare 101 informational book. If you weren't convinced of the Bard's influence and impact on our culture before, reading this will reveal the magnitude.

I say, stop resisting Shakespeare. Surrender. And begin by reading Marche's succinct, important little book.

[Charles Northey · Rating 3 out of 5]

So I liked it- lots of tidbits that provoke a chuckle and be gobsmacked about- so why the middling rating? Some chapters rambled to the point where I would pop out of a droll anecdote wondering why was I reading this… but not really feeling like time was wasted just a bit lost in the meanderings of the author.

[Patrick · Rating 2 out of 5]

One chapter in: I love the topic, but the author is a little hyperbolic from the title, to the first line of the introduction, to the very tenuous claims that both Obama's popularity and hatred of Obama stem from some subconscious societal take on Othello.

The second chapter about Shakespeare's influence on language looks more promising.

Finished: I’ll start with the positive. There were interesting factoids about Shakespeare and related cultural influences in every chapter. I liked the chapter titles. Chapter 2 about words was great…until the last little pseudo-deep bit. The chapter about why we have two hundred million invasive starlings in North America is awesome (Seriously, a guy wanted to bring every bird to North America that was ever mentioned in one of Shakespeare’s plays. He’d tried nightingales and skylarks before, but they’d died out. Starlings had been mentioned one time in one play, and the guy released 100 starlings into Central Park in two batches. They grew into the huge invasive dominant species of today.) …until he tries to relate it to how we truly know nothing in the world just like some characters in Shakespeare’s plays said. The chapter about how Tolstoy had this lifelong irrational grudge against Shakespeare and wrote an entire book about how everyone should hate him was funny…except for the author’s overly condescending interjections of how Shakespeare is actually a genius. The final chapter is also good about how various theories of Shakespeare’s secret identities or about his personality are false.

But this book was overall totally disappointing! Uuuggh. It’s full of crazy hyperbole and bad pseudo-philosophy. It seriously reminds me of some student trying to pad an assigned essay with deep-sounding crap. Freud would never of had any theories and we wouldn’t enjoy sex if it weren’t for Shakespeare. All teenagers are like Ophelia and Romeo & Juliet. Lincoln’s assassination was some big, cultural echo of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar because he was a leader and John Wilkes Booth was an actor. Every political revolution draws inspiration from Shakespeare. The skulls on modern teen wear are because of Hamlet’s skull speech.

Some quotes to illustrate my point:
First two lines of the introduction – William Shakespeare was the most influential person who ever lived. He shaped our world more than any political or religious leader, more than any explorer or engineer.

Last two sentences of the otherwise enjoyable chapter on Words – He is all of his words, and his words are ours. His truest dominion is in speech, and it grows every time we open our mouths.

Parts of the last few paragraphs of the chapter titled “A King of Infinite Space,” about how Hamlet’s skull and Shakespeare explain today’s world in some sort of overarching, cosmic, “whoa brotherness.” This is actual text from pgs. 151-152 –
Shakespeare is current up to the second. He means now. … Hamlet’s father haunts the ancient battlements of Elsinore. Hamlet haunts the food court.

I can almost see him as he stalks the mall, pausing to analyze the teen girls’ discussions of the advantages and disadvantages of their phones, commenting acerbically on the movies showing at the multiplex, wondering aloud at the perfect appropriateness of a store named The Gap. There is providence in the fall of a French fry onto the bleached floor.

Shakespeare makes the world shiver. He makes everyday things vibrate in their preciousness and transience. This personal, private shiver is the source of his worldliness—his public power, which extends, as we’ve seen, from the birds in the sky to the words in our mouths, from brands of Cuban cigars to what you did in bed last night, from Lincoln to Obama. The ripples of Shakespeare stretch further and further, on and on, to the limit of the world, because the stone of his meaning sinks and sinks without ever touching the bottom of our selves.

He ends his last chapter quoting some other writer who compares Shakespeare to God.

Total disappointment. 1.5 stars. Though I did make my wife laugh out loud while I read her that bit about the significant French fry, personal, private shivers, and soul ripples.

[Camilla · Rating 2 out of 5]

I should have realized by the sensationalist title that this book wasn't going to be my cup of tea. Everything. That's a big word with a lot of meaning, but Marche truly seems to believe that Shakespeare did change everything. He divides the chapters into separate sections of what Shakespeare changed--racism, vocabulary, sex, etc. The idea the book is based on is wonderful, but in the end it fails; the sensationalism from the title carries on into the book, to the point of the ridiculous.

Take the parts about sex, which like the rest of the book is written in an annoying casual tone that says, "I'm hip even though I'm smart!" Not only does the book fail to take into account any historical events that changed attitudes toward sex, but he also leaves out important literary figures, like Chaucer, who did the same thing far before Shakespeare. I think Shakespeare's influence is great enough that he can look exciting without half-truths and exaggerations.

The weakest chapter by far is the one on politics; there are few logical arguments that Shakespeare's influence is there at all besides a few U.S. senators quoting the man. Besides a few exceptionally weak chapters, the author also says some things that strike me as peculiar. At one point, the author says,

"It's not just that Freud would never have existed without Shakespeare. Psychology as a field of human endeavor would never have been possible without him."

What? The entire previous argument of Shakespeare's influence on the field of psychology were focused on Freud personally. And while no one would question Freud's influence on psychology, one could hardly call him the founder of "psychology as a field of human endeavor." It was so long before Freud. In the next page, and in one earlier instance, Marche seems almost anti-sex, or at least anti-gay. When he refers to "the normalization of homosexuality and every other kind of freakiness," I can't tell if he's being insulting or using the very casual term "freaky," as in "sexy." Again, the tone is just baffling, and at one point the author makes a cheap jab at Roman Polanski for a few chuckles.

I don't mean to completely bash the book though--as my rating indicates, it had some redeeming features. The section on Shakespeare's use of words that he made up was truly interesting, and even acknowledged that some of them may have been known at the time but never previously recorded (a large feat for a book that prefers to leave out details such as these). I also know nothing about Shakespearean actors of the past, so I found stories about them very enlightening, especially that of Paul Robeson. Indeed, where I felt the book was strongest was when it was just relating facts, little anecdotes from history. These were unfamiliar and free of the author's speculation, and were a very welcome break from the otherwise constant, "Gee whiz, isn't Shakespeare a BADASS? I mean, he single handedly changed your life!" For this reason, the last chapter is actually the best one, and rather readable.

While the book has its moments in the telling of historical stories, for the most part it was like reading a Cracked.com article: the tone was informal to the point that I'd rolled my eyes a few times, and the insane exaggeration served only as an annoyance and was a very unnecessary attempt to make Shakespeare more interesting than he really was. The author is obviously very enthusiastic about his subject, which was wonderful, but unfortunately his enthusiasm makes him blind to any other facts or even criticism (see his section on Tolstoy). I would like to read another book with the same premise, but this one sadly didn't do it for me.

[Pearl · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really wanted to give this book 3 1/2 stars but not quite 4, so I've settled for three.

Marche begins by writing "William Shakespeare was the most influential person who ever lived." An arguable assertion at best. One that dovetails with his book's title, "How Shakespeare Changed Everything." Really - Everything? Marche, a college professor who received his doctorate in Shakespearean studies at the University of Toronto, is a Shakespeare enthusiast. His enthusiasm is infectious; his classes must be a great deal of fun. Yes, he overreaches and his comparisons and connections are often strained; his claims are sometimes "way-out-there" and his insights are sometimes quite brilliant. But this book is fun, breezy, engaging, and very readable.

In ten short pithy chapters, Marche makes his case, usually by focusing on one or two plays to illustrate. He traces a line from "Othello" to Obama; from "Julius Caesar" to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln; from "Romeo and Juliet" to intemperate, passionate adolescence; from "Twelfth Night" to transvestites and today's role-bending sexuality; from "Hamlet" to Freud and Oedipal longings and so on. I think no one would argue with his claims about how Shakespeare expanded the English language and how fun and bawdy he was. He also was (indirectly) responsible for sparlings being brought to North America. Look at the book jacket. See the sparling on Shakespeare's bald head. Evidently a New York pharmaceutical manufacturer, a great great fan of Shakespeare and of birds, determined to import every bird Shakespeare ever mentioned to America. Shakespeare mentioned sparlings just once - in "Henry IV, Part I" - but with what a bad result!

Marche acknowledges that there is racial prejudice in Shakespeare's plays ("Othello" and "The Merchant of Venice" for example) but discusses how Shakespeare's humanism saved him. His plays, Marche says, may be full of racial stereotypes but he never fails to depict that person's essential humanity. Marche's discussion of the difference between Tolstoy and Chekhov's feelings about Shakespeare is my favorite part of the book, probably because it confirms my own prejudice about these two men. Tolstoy didn't like Shakespeare and, in fact, put forth a great deal of effort in trying to persuade others that Shakespeare was not a great writer. Chekhov liked Shakespeare. Chekhov, like Shakespeare, recognized the messiness of life. Tolstoy wanted life to be tidy. Here's part of Marche's discussion: "Tolstoy believed that things could be understood, and Chekhov did not. Put another way: Tolstoy believed that life should be fair, and Chekhov didn't think it could be. Put yet another way: Chekhov understood Shakespeare and Tolstoy did not."

It helps to know something of Shakespeare's plays (and sonnets) to appreciate this book, but you don't have to be a Shakespeare scholar to enjoy it. Maybe better if you're not. This is no A.C. Bradley on Shakespearean tragedy nor does it pretend or want to be. It won't take you long to read it and you could even learn something and catch some of Marche's enthusiasm.

[Gypsi · Rating 1 out of 5]

I expectedHow Shakespeare Changed Everythingto be a lighthearted look at various ways that Shakespeare's influence can be found in the world today. What I did not expect was a near fanatical, quite serious, series of essays about, well, how Shakespeare changed everything.

The first line of Marche's introduction sets his tone: "William Shakespeare was the most influential person who ever lived."

Well, all right. . .

In his first essay, "the Fortunes of the Moor", Marche gives Shakespeare credit for the election of the first African American President. According to Marche, because Shakespeare wrote Othello, and because Paul Robeson acted the part in the 1940's, the United States has it's first African American President. I am not simplifying his argument. I suppose, for Marche, the entire Civil Rights Movement was unimportant?

In another essay, "Words, Words, Words", he credits Shakespeare with creating more words than any other author--any word not previously recorded prior to Shakespeare's writing it down is, according to Marche, a Shakespeare invention. Marche seems to forget that Shakespeare was a man of the streets, and what he was writing down was slang. Did the first journalist (or script writer) to use the word "noob" invent it? No. Did Shakespeare invent the words he wrote? No. Shakespeare was a writer of popular, low brow entrainment, the equivalent of a sitcom or soap opera writer today. He was writing for his audience, using their words. Bravo for Shakespeare for recording so many, but only a history-ignorant hero-worshiper could think that he invented them all.

In "Not Marbles, nor the Gilded Monuments", Marche states "the greater the artist, the more he or she was influenced by Shakespeare". For blind fanaticism, this is a great line. For truth about literary greatness, it doesn't even deserve a response.

One of Marche's arguments is that the introduction of Starlings to NYC came from Eugene Schieffelin's attempt to introduce all the birds of Shakespeare to the United States. I was fascinated by this, actually giving Marche his due for a way that Shakespeare really did change the world, until I looked it up myself. While it may be true, there is no factual evidence to prove that the given reason is more than the equivalent of an urban legend.

Marche, with the zeal of a school boy writing his first opinion essay, finds Shakespeare as the source for everything from the sexual revolution to the assassination of Lincoln, to the idea of teenagers to the use of skulls as decoration. He often proved himself wrong with the few contrary facts he allows into his essays. An easy bit of research will show contrary views and facts for those that don't find his obsessive devotion easy to swallow.

Marche's mediocre writing does nothing to help his case. Despite being a novelist and regular magazine contributor, his prose in How Shakespeare Changed Everything is juvenile, dull and overtly slanted.

I was unconvinced and thoroughly disappointed. I had expected a lively, entertaining book and instead found a series of essays that might have been written for a high school English class.

[Alyssa Nelson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Having been accepted into a teaching program, and knowing that I will most likely being teaching high school English in a few years, I have become a little obsessed with reading things about works I'll probably be teaching. Shakespeare is top on that list since I hated studying his plays in high school, and I want my future students to actually enjoy the experience. As the title suggests, How Shakespeare Changed Everything is a collection of anecdotes about Shakespeare's influence on society.

Most of the stuff presented is quite interesting. Marche goes into how Freud was deeply influenced by Shakespeare, and even takes the time to present some of the many words and phrases Shakespeare coined. Without him, we wouldn't have "bandit, fashionable, lackluster, glow, etc." For those who teach Shakespeare, you definitely should check this out. It will give you quite a few responses to the "Why should we care? This doesn't affect us." attitude that students sometimes have.

How Shakespeare Changed Everything is an enjoyable, fast read that has a lot of good stories about the influence of Shakespeare. Marche's enthusiasm for the greatness of Shakespeare bursts through every page, which made me excited to read what he had to say. However, I do think it goes a little too far in its claims sometimes. While nobody can ignore the comparison made between Othello and President Obama, I really don't think Obama was elected into office because of our subconscious knowledge of the inner workings of Othello. Still, this is something that all Shakespeare lovers will appreciate.

[Katherine · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first half of this was super interesting, and lived up to the title. I loved the first half. It smoothly picks you up and points out things you may never have noticed before, or recognized as a "Shakespeare thing", without feeling dry and always staying playful. The second half of this was a bit of a let-down: much less pointing out the ways Shakespeare has influenced the English language & western culture, and way more of the author just getting some *stuff* off his chest.

A weird amount of time is spent arguing with Tolstoy's distaste for Shakespeare, which had its moments, but felt very "old man yelling at cloud" at times. An equally weird amount of time is spent debunking theories that Shakespeare is not the true author of Shakespeare plays - which again, feels like the author just needed some space to work out his frustration with those theories, rather than living up to the title and telling us about how Shakespeare "changed everything" around us. It just comes out of left field, and feels like a waste of space in a book that had such great potential.

The first half totally saves my impression of this though, and the chapter about the words/expressions/etc. that Shakespeare invented and introduced into the English language was so, so great. Overall, it's a short and relatively easy read for those who are interested in Shakespeare's ripple effects on how we speak and think.

[Diane · Rating 1 out of 5]

Yikes! This was an embarrassment. The author makes some heavy duty claims about Shakespeare that were hard to swallow. Yes, he is responsible for creating many words that are an integral part of our language. Yes, Shakespeare was hugely influential but "the most influential person who ever lived" is a bit exaggerated. Maybe Marche wrote these things out of enthusiasm or an eagerness to prove a point but his hyperbole and his overwrought prose made this hard to enjoy. Then Marche wrote, "The sexual revolution of the sixties and the smaller sexual revolution we are undergoing now, with the normalization of homosexuality and every other kind of freakishness, both derive directly from Freud's humanistic, unembarrassed approach to desire. That humanism and that lack of embarrassment are Shakespeare's." So now homosexuality is freakishness? I was DONE with Marche after reading that. He writes without thinking. His prose has alienated me. I love many of Shakespeare's works. I think he was hugely influential in many areas. Marche didn't write a thing that made me believe that Shakespeare "changed EVERYTHING."

[K. · Rating 2 out of 5]

I so wanted to give this more stars. Marche is very, very enthusiastic about Shakespeare. It is hard to fault his general argument: it is hard to put a limit on how much Shakespeare has impacted culture, sometimes on a worldwide basis. But is he really the reason why so many teenagers tend to doodle skulls over everything? Can we thank Will for the progress of civil rights, and the election of President Obama? And is Freud so deeply indebted to Shakespeare as to base much of his theories on psychoanalysis on the playwright? It all seems a bit of a stretch, and even these dubious assertions are milked to more than their utmost to fill out this slim, widely-margined work. Maybe skip this one and just go straight for the complete works of Shakespeare--they hardly need an argument for why we're all still reading and arguing over these 400 year old works today.

[Ann · Rating 2 out of 5]

For a book by a Shakespeare scholar, this one is disturbingly poorly researched with rumors thrown out as facts (Edward de Vere, the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, who the 'Oxfordians' believe is the true author of Shakespeare's works is not a confirmed pedophile, as Marche claims "recent biographies have uncovered," but rather was accused of this heinous crime by three enemies who included several other charges that were proven to be slanderous lies) and odd conclusions (Obama as the modern-day incarnation of Othello) presented with little to no substantive analysis. Marche may teach Shakespeare (and he clearly loves his work) but this alone certainly does not qualify him to write a book-length analysis of the Bard's impact on society (a topic that would be magical in the right hands).

[Hannah · Rating 1 out of 5]

I enjoyed reading the chapters; The Fortunes of the Moor and To Be or Not to Be as I was interested in the history of Paul Robeson as Othello and William-Henry as a fraud.

I intended to read this book as an introduction to Shakespeare and his influence, but, unfortunately, I was quickly confronted by overzealous and impossible claims of Shakespeare's influence. Even the title is an impossible claim, Shakespeare didn't change everything!

"William Shakespeare is the most influential person who ever lived"

"Psychology as a field of human endeavor would never have been possible without him"

These claims are impossible to prove. Of course, there have been more influential people( fictitious or not) with a greater influence. I mean the two people that come to mind first are Gandhi and Jesus Christ. And I think in human history, Psychology as the field would have developed without Shakespeare, if not a bit later in the world.

These over-the-top claims scream the author's enthusiasm and his own bias, which undermined all of his arguments.

"There would be no Obama if there were not first Othello, just as there would be no Leonardo DiCaprio if there were not first Romeo"

This claim makes me want to hit my head against a wall. The author makes this claim but he'd need a whole book to try and prove it. That's an insane claim! I believe, even without Othello, African Americans would still have fought for freedom and equality which led to Obama's presidency. Plus Leonardo Dicaprio was already a successful child actor before his performance of Romeo.

These claims simply can't be proven and you just continued to irritate me with random claims like "The best murder mysteries are always ghost stories". Excuse my language. That is bullshit! As an Agatha Christe fan, ghost stories are my least favorite mysteries. That claim is subjective anyway, quoting this book, "It depends".

While other comments from the author are truly concerning and disgusting.

The author suggests that John Wilkes Booth(who assassinated Lincon) wasn't that insane because of his great knowledge and understanding of Shakespeare's plays.

"It's tempting to believe that John Wilkes was insane. So his family claimed. But he was certainly sane enough to understand Julius Caesar".

That's just a weird and inappropriate comment to make, to suggest a murderer wasn't that insane because they understood Shakespeare's plays, and incorporated Shakespeare into his murder plot. That elaborate thought-out murder shouldn't be admired and doesn't suggest that perpetrator was any saner.

The author calls out Romeo and Juliet for being creepy but then goes on to say,

"The sexist women's clothes look best on girls with whom it would be illegal to have sex".

This is foul! It doesn't matter what a child is wearing! A child is never sexy! If you think they are, then seek help and keep away from kids Unfortunately, this isn't the only time the author makes sexual comments about children. Instead of calling out the sexualizing of Ophelia's dead body in Western cultures, the author plays into it and says:

"The look on her face is one of pure sexual ecstasy" WTF!!

The author should be investigated. He talks about the creepiness of Romeo and Juliet's relationship with Juliet's age but isn't self-aware of his disgusting comments!

And lastly, the author makes homophobic comments that show his issues with the topic of sex.

"With the normalization of homosexuality and every other kind of freakiness"

"Sexual survey of America... paints a remarkably freaky picture of daily American life"

By reading this I know that the author is homophobic, and prudish regarding the topic of sex (except of course when talking about young girls' bodies). I shouldn't be able to know this by reading this book. I should be reading solid arguments not ridiculous claims and inappropriate comments that reflect the author's prejudices.

I remember he even made a sexist comment about boys learning Latin and I felt personally insulted, that when the book was written in 2011, the author still excluded girls from the topic of learning Latin. I started learning Latin in that same year as a girl! I read Catellus as a young woman where ironically the text was censored!

This book should be formally written. Instead of expressing how influential Shakespeare was and still is, all the author has expressed fully is how much he loves Shakespeare, and that he is a little sexist, homophobic, prudish, and a creep who sexualizes girls(again please get some help).

Even more evidence of this is how in the last chapter, he discusses the interesting history of how people have believed that Shakespeare is a conspiracy and or was a combination of different writers at the time.

The author calls these people nutjobs, crazies, and lunatics. He even flat-out calls Tolstoy crazy because he hates Shakespeare's work.

Calling people names because you disagree is so childish and is shocking to see in a published book regarding historical people and events.
Opinions in such a book should be respectful and be based on evidence, not on pure prejudice. His feelings are clear, but his credibility and reliability are shot to hell.

How can I trust the author's arguments when he is so clearly biased and passionate to defend Shakespeare and make overzealous claims in his name?

The only good thing that has come out of reading this book is that I am more interested in learning about Shakespeare(from more reliable and respectful sources). There is so much history wrapped around Shakespeare, and I now feel the urge to see one of his plays.

[Irene · Rating 1 out of 5]

The premise of this book was great, and it was a quick, easy read and definitely taught me some interesting things about Shakespeare's considerable influence on culture and history and the English language, but I'm not a fan of the author's approach to the book at all. He is very good at jumping to conclusions and making grandiose claims without enough to back them up - if he's not pushing Shakespeare as a sexual hedonist, he's claiming that "William Shakespeare was the most influential person who ever lived" (much as I love and admire Shakespeare, such a claim is beyond extreme in my opinion).

[Femme Frugality · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was so excited to read this book. So disappointing. Quite a few of the ideas he claims are originally Shakespeare's actually came to be via the Greeks. For example, his entire expansion on how we view youth can be attributed to Shakespeare comes from Romeo and Juliet, which is simply a retelling and tweaking of Pyramus and Thisbe. Perhaps the story is even older than that. The section that gained the biggest credence with me was about his abilities as a wordsmith, and, honestly, that wasn't something that I didn't already know.

[Joel Nunez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Light but exhaustive take on the depth and breadth of the Bard's influence on flora and fauna (yes!), language, culture, and yes, politics. Trivia lovers will find this book handy, those who do not know of Shakespeare (if such creatures do exist) will find this intriguing primer, and Shakespeare lovers will enjoy this validation of his influence and the intelligent discussion of the theories that he did not exist but is the assumed identity of several writers.

[Susan Rainwater · Rating 1 out of 5]

I found "How Shakespeare Changed Everything" to be lightweight and flimsy in content, and lacking any new perspective on Shakespeare. Also, it failed to answer the basic question of how Shakespeare changed anything. For more insightful reading, I'd recommend Bill Bryson's "Shakespeare: World as Stage", which is about the same number of pages but far more interesting. For biographical information, Stephen Greenblatt's "Will in the World" has greater depth and insight.

[Emily · Rating 5 out of 5]

This little book is my new obsession. I practically read it in one sitting today and it was so fascinating, I did not want it to end. Whether you love Shakespeare(ME!) or loathe him, you can't deny his impact for the past 400 years and Stephen Marche brings to light all the little and big ways The Bard has shaped our world. So, so interesting.

[Mike · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting, but not outstanding. Too much is based on the idea that Shakespeare actually did change everything. The simple answer to that is 'No, he didn't.' Marche discusses frauds in the last chapter of the book: the idea that Shakespeare changed everything is also a fraud, a theory without real substance.

[landrejczyk · Rating 1 out of 5]

Dnfed about halfway through. While I think that this book had a lot of potential and it is a great book idea, the execution was poor to say the least. The author was essentially fangirling over Shakespeare and crossed into irrelevant and even sometimes ridiculous territory. This book is really not worth your time.

[مؤرخ · Rating 3 out of 5]

الكتاب لا يدل عنوانه على محتواه بالشكل الدقيق. ولكنه مهم للراغب في القراءة عن النقد الأدبي الإنجليزي. وكنت قد قرأت مقدمته فاعتقدت أنه يفصل في التأثير الثقافي لكتابات شيكسبير ، ولكن هذا لا يمثل إلا عشرين في المائة من الكتاب.