STRAIGHT ACTING: The Hidden Queer Lives of William Shakespeare, needed corrective to heteronormativity

STRAIGHT ACTING: The Hidden Queer Lives of William Shakespeare
WILL TOSH
Seal Press
$32.00 hardcover, available now

Rating: 4.5* of five

The Publisher Says: A dazzling portrait of Shakespeare as a young artist, revealing how his rich and complex queer life informed the plays and poems we treasure today

“Was Shakespeare gay?” For years the question has sent experts and fans into a tailspin of confusion. But as scholar Will Tosh argues, this debate misses the sex, intimacy, and identity in Elizabethan England were infinitely more complex—and queer—than we have been taught.

In this incisive biography, Tosh reveals William Shakespeare as a queer artist who drew on his society’s nuanced understanding of gender and sexuality to create some of English literature’s richest works. During Shakespeare’s time, same-sex desire was repressed and punished by the Church and state, but it was also articulated and sustained by institutions across England. Moving through the queer spaces of Shakespeare’s life—his Stratford schoolroom, smoky London taverns and playhouses, the royal court—Tosh shows how strongly Shakespeare’s early work was influenced by the queer culture of the time, much of it totally integrated into mainstream society. He also uncovers the surprising reason why Shakespeare veered away from his early work’s gender-bending homoeroticism.

Offering a subversive sketch of Elizabethan England, Straight Acting uncovers Shakespeare as one of history’s great queer artists and completely reshapes the way we understand the Bard’s life and times.

I RECEIVED A DRC FROM THE PUBLISHER VIA NETGALLEY. THANK YOU.

My Review: Whaaat?! 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...men 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 Police Gazette 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.