tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31671374.post3092917039988422219..comments2023-10-30T07:10:34.610-07:00Comments on Underbelly: Shakespeare the PlayerBucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16452321114185736762noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31671374.post-15187823665080894572016-08-20T22:39:39.259-07:002016-08-20T22:39:39.259-07:00I've just bought this book from a local book s...I've just bought this book from a local book sale and 40 pages in I've got to say I am very impressed. I have read a number of Shakespeare biographies and 3 of James Shapiro's books on Shakespeare and I've got to say that Southworth's theory seems very convincing.This very much struck home:<br /><br />Not “a single player in the whole period is known to have been accepted into any of the companies in his early twenties without previous training or experience, as is [conventionally] supposed of Shakespeare”.<br /><br />In retrospect we can look back and see how exceptional Shakespeare was and think of course a Theatre company would have taken him on. But he would have been taken on by people completely lacking our hindsight. It makes sense that we have no evidence for what Shakespeare was doing, but that players served apprenticeships therefore in want of any better explanation Shakespeare most likely served an apprenticeship in the theatre. It seems so obvious.<br /><br />Thanks for the write up, by the way.<br />Keri Fordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386177565660630959noreply@blogger.com