I couldn’t say I was an expert of William Shakespeare or of his œuvre. I wouldn’t even go as far as claiming to be an enlightened amateur. All I know was what I learned at school, in Austria, and that didn’t amount to much. We studied the best known plays, "Macbeth", "Hamlet", "Romeo and Juliet", and that was it. At least, we weren’t provided modernized, simplified renderings, but had to put up with “ye olde” version. And that, believe me, was quite a feat—English wasn’t our native language, many words were outdated, therefore unfamiliar or outright unknown. Of course, the most salacious puns and double-entendres were not explained, either, for our teacher deemed them too crude for our chaste, fifteen-year-old ears (more’s the pity).

Despite the difficulties I listed above, I have to say I enjoyed Shakespeare a great deal in those young years (I’ve always been the odd, nerdy one, in my class) and have always anted to know more about him. That’s why I requested "Straight Acting: The Many Queer Lives of William Shakespeare," albeit with mixed emotions—fear that it would assume too much background knowledge or be too scholarly, and hope that it would bring the Bard closer to adult me. Well, my fears were unjustified and my hopes fulfilled. Will Tosh turned out to be a skilled teller of tales, his writing was fluid, his explanations of the murkier sides and the more suggestive meanings of some words informative. He didn’t try to prove why we should think of Shakespeare as being personally gay or queer, either, which would have been rather anti-climactic for me (apart from, and because of, being totally anachronistic). Instead, he admitted there weren’t enough evidence and known facts to say Shakespeare was or decide he wasn’t, and more importantly, Tosh didn’t make this the essential point of his book.

What he did show was Shakespeare and his writings in a specific context—the last years of Queen Elizabeth I’s and the early years of her successor King James I’s reigns. It was very cleverly done, too. Each chapter had a short, fictionalised introductory sequence (I’m sure I’m not the only one thinking Tosh would make an interesting fiction writer) followed by biographical details and text analyses not only of Shakespeare’s, but also of his fellow writers’ literary production. The bits Tosh didn’t have evidence for didn’t become missing parts of the narrative; instead, he provided accurate guesses by painting the picture of other young men of the same age who had lived in the same era, come from the same sociological background as our famous poet and playwright, and had left texts that could shed light on what experiences Shakespeare might have had.

So, it was a fascinating journey back in time. I found the school years, particularly, very interesting, but also Shakespeare’s arrival in London and how his life possibly/probably turned out. Together with all the the discussion of subtexts in some of Shakespeare’s and his fellow writers’ texts (those were most certainly queer for all who had eyes and could read), that made for an entertaining and informative book (my favourite mix when it comes to non-fiction). I almost regretted it wasn’t longer. What I would love to see, one day, would be a novel about the period and themes covered in this book. Yes, fiction, why not? What one doesn’t know, one can invent when writing a novel, right? Might I be so bold as to suggest Tosh should tackle it himself? Oh, let’s! I’m sure he’d pull it off. Anyway, for anyone intrigued by the title as much as I was, you should really grab a copy.

What an incredible reading experience this book was. I'm an avid fan of British literature and I have a soft spot for theatrical history, queer theory, and literary criticism. This book blends all of those qualities beautifully into a true master class on Shakespeare, his influence, and his background that deserves so much more attention.

Don't worry if you aren't a Shakespeare expert before reading this book. Will Tosh does an extraordinary job of showcasing the basic information needed to enjoy the book while also posing questions long-time fans of Shakespeare can think about to their heart's content. I look forward to adding a physical copy to my collection so I can highlight and annotate it to pieces. It really is thought-provoking in so many ways.

Thank you to the author, Basic Books/ Seal Press, and Netgalley for this ARC in exchange for my review.

Thanks to NetGalley and Basic Books for the ARC.

I know the most popular Shakespeare plays. Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Midsummer’s. I was never interested in studying more because I thought he was overdone in the academic world, so I took a Milton course in college instead (mandatory dead white guy course for English majors). I'll be damned, this book makes me want to read Shakespeare. Rather than getting into the was he/wasn't he argument, Tosh goes over the queer subtext in the literature of Shakespeare's education, the works and lives of his contemporaries, and how that can show in his own works. All this is in a way that a novice can understand, perfect for someone who went out of their way to avoid reading more Shakespeare in the past.

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/6941839765

https://app.thestorygraph.com/reviews/6e740ea7-7512-4060-86c3-255a5fa4f600

Check out this review of Straight Acting on Fable. https://fable.co/review/f1bbbbb0-dfda-4545-a19e-2398e5b11e69/share

This title is an absolute must-read if you have any interest in theatre history, Tudor history, and/or queer history. If I could, I would give it a scale-breaking six stars.

Author Will Tosh is doing something new and fascinating here. There has been speculation off and on concerning whether Shakespeare was what we would now call queer. That's not the topic Tosh is exploring. He begins with an assumption that there simply isn't enough information to be able to know Shakespeare's what we would now call gender identity. However, what there is enough information on relationships among men—both those we now call straight and those we now call queer—in Tudor England that we can examine Shakespeare's works for evidence these various types of relationships among men and query what they might tell us about Shakespeare's world view and experiences.

This is fascinating stuff. Tosh portrays a type of idealized male-male relationship, purportedly superior to any possible male-female relationship, that was celebrated during the reign of Elizabeth I and James I. Such relations were based on classical models and were etched into the psyches of young men with enough money to go to school and to spend time working their way through Latin and Greek texts in the original languages.

Were these relationships sexual? Sometimes, yes; sometimes, no. The penalty for sodomy in Tudor England was death, although such cases were a rarity. But the idealized male friendship helped create a space in which some men did manage to engage in queer sexual activity without winding up on trial for their lives. This space, however, was small, and the turbulent religious and political battles of the time meant that one couldn't count on being able to remain in this space.

Tosh also looks beyond Shakespeare's works to consider other texts from the time and how their authors were viewed: Marlowe, Greene, Fletcher, and Nash among them. In some cases the were-they-or-won't-they question can be answered with a bit more certainty.

I really cannot understate how much I enjoyed reading this book, how much I appreciate Tosh's research and the research of others he draws on, and how precise and engaging Tosh's prose is. This is a book I know I'll reread because I want at least one or two more rounds of the eye opening and assumption challenging experiences it can offer.

I received a free electronic review copy of this text from the publisher via NetGalley; the opinions are my own.

Tosh shares that he is an academic right away. And it comes across in his writing. Now, Straight Acting: The Hidden Queer Lives of William Shakespeare isn’t a dry, dull paper. Tosh makes a great effort to use a conversational, amicable tone in his work. But it still comes across as a thesis. It’s a little too heavy on citations and quotes. Shakespeare’s story often feels lost in the general history that Tosh is relating to us.

Full review at link: https://broadway.thecosmiccircus.com/book-review-straight-acting-the-hidden-queer-lives-of-william-shakespeare-by-will-tosh/

Real Rating: 4.5* of five

<i>Whaaat?!</i> You mean there's credible evidence that heteronormative readings of the Bard aren't the whole picture?! Well, I never! Next you'll tell me that William Rufus and Richard Lion-Heart *were* big ol' 'mos!

Folks...<i>men</i> brought Juliet, Portia, Lady Macbeth, Desdemona, et alii to life. Not because they were second best choices, or because this is boarding school and that's all there is, but because they brought these female roles vibrantly and intensely, convincingly and alluringly, to life. Actors were out in drag, making people believe, and lust for, the females Shakespeare knew as he was writing them would be played by males. He most likely had an image of who he wanted for each role. He was a man of the theatre, a playwright and actor, it would be weird if he had not.

That means...wait for it...he knew what made a man beautiful, and chose ones he knew could evoke the many, complicated responses his characters do from an audience. Including lust.

Time to stop the disingenuous "there was no such thing as gayness in Shakespeare's time! And look at all those sodomy laws! No homo, bro!" True, the entire QUILTBAG spectrum was not conceptualized then.

Because there was no need. Not like y'all heteronormative people think. There was no need in the culture to label things that didn't affect you, weren't relevant to your life. The Church was the self-appointed bedroom behavior regulator; sex lives of strangers was their job to judge and police, not some random dude on the street. This was the time of "don't make me notice you and I won't be forced to call in the law." That law, civil or religious, was Draconian. The denouncements of sodomites from the pulpit, in that god-ridden age, was as good as the <i>Police Gazette</i> in eighteenth and nineteenth century England was at getting the word out on who was a sodomite. But given how many men and women get up to a spot of sodomy (about 46% per good ol' Alfred Kinsey in his as-yet-unmatched surveys) we can feel sure it was the loudest, loosest, and least able (or willing) to pass by being quiet who make up the extensive case evidence in court archives the world over.

Shakespeare, operating in a world I'd call a straight guy's paradise aka the theatre, wouldn't have been much attended to as to his personal life. Married with children, no reason would've been found...unlike with Marlowe, who was aggressively Other in a time where conformity was more rigidly enforced on the surface than it is even now. His obscene plays, though no patch on PG-13 films today, his louche life of spying and, there's credible evidence to suggest, bonking the boys, all while knowingly on the radar of the Queen's secret police, was the index case for how to get yourself in bad trouble. There's a cautionary tale in Deptford. No such tale exists in our hero's life. He was rather shockingly absent from public records. He never appeared before a judge, he wasn't going to make waves...that family in Stratford needed supporting, even though he wasn't going to be there in the flesh. After all, even Will's "rival poet" Richard Barnfield, known to be author of a very explicitly homoerotic poem that he was later, when under fire from Authority for its naughtiness, glad enough to disavow, had asked for it by being indiscreet. Examples of consequences make it easy to justify internally toeing the line.

Using the technique of writing short fictional vignettes at the beginning of each chapter that set the scene for the reader will turn some off hard. I appreciated it because it wasn't presented as facts of Shakespeare's life. Still, as noted, we can't know if any of the things in those vignettes are realities Shakespeare would've experienced. As with all people long dead, we will never be possessed of certainty about his nature, his feelings, his thoughts and prayers.

This fact does not stop the heteronormies from saying, "see? see? he couldn't have been queer!"; as always, ignoring the giant flaw in their reasoning: Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Was he, wasn't he, will we ever know ye , Will?

Nope. And that's okay. It's got to be. There can never be a fully known person of his five-hundred-years-gone era. The evidence for his bisexuality and attraction to other men is all over his work. But it can never be proof, either to the heteronormies or the queering crowd.

Enjoy this excavation of sex, sexual identity, and societal accommodation of gender and sexual minorities in Shakespeare's time, and then think your own thoughts about him. He certainly won't care.

This book was very neet, just not quite what I was expecting.

On the positive side, it is VERY thorough. It goes into a lot of detail, and everything is explained. Everything. Additionally it's really cool to see a view of how queer things were in that time period. I feel like there's so little literature that covers this, and it's awesome. Especially when it's something as influential as Shakespeare.

I won't lie though, this wasn't exactly what I expected. I was surprised by how much detail was given of plays by people who weren't Shakespeare, and while I understand some were rivals, influencers to Shakespeare and and, it still felt like a lot of time was spent on people and works that weren't Shakespeare. I appreciate those things, but it wasn't what I was looking for in this book specifically.

Generally it's good! Lots of information and interesting thought points. If you're a Shakespeare or history person, I would definitely say take a read! This book definitely has a target audience.

I’m by no means a Shakespeare expert or a history scholar. I read like maybe 3 or 4 of his plays back in school, but a lot of it definitely went over my head. So while I was interested in reading this book because the idea of learning about queer influences on Shakespeare sounded great, I was also a bit hesitant. I was worried that I’d just feel lost or not have enough background knowledge of him, his works, or the time period to fully appreciate the book. But I’m glad to say that didn’t happen. The author Will Tosh made the subject completely engaging and understandable for someone reading it from a non-expert position.

This isn’t a book that is trying to definitively prove that Shakespeare was absolutely gay and “here look at these sources that prove he slept with men” or whatever. It’s about showing the queer elements that existed in his society, queer stories he would’ve learned in school, queer works from other poets and playwrights working at the same time, and discussing the queer characters and themes present in his poems and plays. It was really interesting to see recurring references to queer Greek or Roman myths that kept popping up in different works. Or to think about the different meanings that lines could take on when the female roles were being performed by men on stage.

I just had a great time reading this book. It has inspired me to want to read some more of Shakespeare’s plays or to seek out adaptations of them. I think people interested in queer literary history should definitely check this book out.

Transforming our understanding of Shakespeare’s life, this biography depicts the playwright and poet as a queer artist influenced by his era’s complex views on gender and sexuality. Despite legal repression, same-sex desire thrived. This book explores the queer spaces of Shakespeare’s life, revealing how this culture shaped his early work—and the reasons behind his later shift away from homoerotic themes.

This fascinating, fun, and informative book is for anyone interested in Shakespeare, Elizabethan history, or LGBTQ culture. It’s a much-needed antidote to the heteronormative nonsense claiming the early sonnets were about friendship, not romance, because they were written to a man. The book is entertaining, enlightening, and easy to read.

Thanks, NetGalley, for the ARC I received. This is my honest and voluntary review.

I love history, especially ones that remind us that it was a lot gayer than longstanding memes interwoven into our culture would have us believe. I also like arts and literature and behind the scenes stuff regarding the artist and the circumstances under which their art was created. So yeah, this book was pretty much right up my alley.

I do wonder, though, about the woman in Shakespeare’s life, his wife and the mother of his children, Anne Hathaway. Did she know about his sexuality and was she offended or okay with it? Or did she just turn a blind eye to it all?

I was immediately drawn into Tosh’s insight into how life in Elizabethan England led to, at the very least, a good deal of homoeroticism. I was absorbed throughout, but the conclusion seemed disconnected from the rest of the text.

A book on queer history, whether focused to one specific individual or time or written in broad strokes over decades or even hundreds of years, can either be accessible or so densely packed with academic terminology and concepts that it’s essentially impenetrable. Thankfully, this book on Shakespeare’s work and how it was influenced by the times is the former, not the latter. I have not by any means touched all of Shakespeare’s catalogue, but I felt drawn into the book rather than scared away because of any lack of familiarity.

Will Tosh begins each chapter with a little fictionalised bit following Shakespeare and observing what he might have seen or done at the set time. I don’t always love when authors do this, but it works for this book to sort of cleanse the palate and refresh the reader—or at least it did for me. There are also, of course, many portions of plays and sonnets which are analysed for queer meanings and explanations that might have been immediately familiar to those in the past with classical training that will fly over the heads of modern readers. A couple examples I came up with a different reading, but that’s the fun of examining literature!

All things said and done, I learned quite a bit about how some poets were sneaking in queer love into their poetry under the safety of the chaste love between friends, and how Richard Barnfield, followed later by Shakespeare, boldly injected erotic themes into their sonnets. It’s a perfect read for Pride Month!

I received a copy of this book via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

this was a superb read! i adore shakespeare and i was really looking forward to getting to know more about lgbtq+ history in elizabethan times, and this was super informative and fun to read! i’d definitely recommend it.

This is the easiest 5 stars I've ever given a book.

Tosh managed to write an academic text (Foucault mention within 4%) for a public audience and writes an extremely convincing message.

The book includes fictional, literary passages intended to paint the scene, followed by a chapter of historical analysis. It allows the reader to place Shakespeare within a cultural context and, while unpacking that culture, draw logical conclusions. The book provides much needed nuance to constructivism without making unfounded claims and also provides a reasonable take on queerness pre-19th century.

This is very readable; Tosh's writing is excellent - never tedious, but never jumping to conclusions. That said, I wouldn't describe this as an easy read. It is focused, streamlined, and is a deep dive into early modern sexuality and masculinity.

I truly hope this won't be Tosh's only book intended for a public audience. Thank you NetGalley and Seal Press for an ARC of this book!

5 stars

As a burgeoning Shakespearean scholar myself, it is of vital importance to me to read as much as possible about the man in all of his complex, multi-faceted glory. Tosh's Straight Acting asks us to stop fixating on the question of whether or not Shakespeare was queer and puts forth a portrait of our artist as a young man flourishing in a society where same-sex desire was simultaneously repressed and sustained. Even with my fairly extensive background knowledge, I found this book to be a treasure trove of information about the social milieu of London, about the writing of Shakespeare's contemporaries, and about Shakespeare's response to these works as seen through his own plays and poetry. This is not an interrogation where Shakespeare's words are held up to a microscope so that a queer reading can be discerned line by line; it is a excavation and celebration of the articulated queerness of the early modern era (our most-likely-bi king Billy Shakes included!).

Thank you to NetGalley and Seal Press for an ARC of this book in exchange for a fair and honest review!

Really loved the way Tosh approaches his subject. This book is both entertaining and informative, and peels back the layers on Shakespeare, the man, and the culture within which he existed.

This book is great. As a queer Shakespeare fan who has always wondered about whether I was reading into the characters and the history of the plays more than I should have been this book was a great way to learn about the history of Shakespeare and the relationship between his writing and sexuality and gender. Reading about Shakespeare in a different light and then looking back at his plays I've read and study made me feel more seen as a queer Shakespeare fan and even though it is small gives me some resources for when I debate and analysis Shakespeare and his work through a queer lens. I think this is a great book for queer Shakespeare fans but also Shakespeare fans who simply want to learn more about him and the society he was in and the expectation people were forced to meet.

Tosh’s work provides invaluable insight into gender and sexuality in Elizabethan England. While focusing primarily on Shakespeare’s life and works, Tosh explores topics at a societal level as well, such as breeching, education, and specific groups and events of the time. The detailed analyses of queerness in Shakespeare’s work are great but having them act as a bridge to the time-period itself was an unexpected treat.

This book avoids jargon and fully explains any individuals, events, and texts that readers need to know to understand the concepts discussed. Tosh also crafts interesting vignettes at the beginning of each chapter to contextualize where Shakespeare is at that point in time. This approach made it easy to follow the narrative and fun to learn what would happen next.

Much of the queer representation here is male-focused, so some may want more focus on women and/or trans and gender-non-confirming individuals, but I think Tosh does a good job of explaining why information on them is not more readily available. In his analyses, he also readily explains to lesbian, trans, and genderfluid readings and representations. I thought his approach to queerness was as inclusive as possible.

I think anyone interested in Shakespeare, queer histories, and the intersection of the two would find this book both enjoyable to read and valuable in its information. I hope this book inspires others to pursue the work of tackling queer history and queer biography, as more certainly exists despite centuries of burying.

I loved learning about Shakespeare throughout my life so I was very intrigued to learn about the queer life he led, this book was very informative and easy to read.

thanks to NetGalley for the eARC

⭐️=5 | 😘=5 | 🤬=4 | ⚔️=4 | 18+

summary: what it says in the title (homosocial early modern environments + gay poems + gay Romans inspiring gay poems + analyzing early modern gay poets and their work and their misogyny also and what it says about their culture at large et cetera)

thoughts: iconic. necessary. so informative and delightful and queer and perfectly nerdy?? like this scratched an inexplicable itch in my brain and now I want a queer biography of all my favorite classic authors.