" This book was quite readable, full of interesting detail and threw some light on one of the less explored periods of Shakespeare's life, but I found myself getting increasingly annoyed at Nicholl's flights of wild speculation and overstating his case. Every other page seemed to be marked by some highly dubious assertion, prefaced by "doubtless", "it is possible that", "we can probably assume that" etc. Nicholl is the kind of man that jumps to the conclusion that two people who happen to live on the same street at around the same time must know each other intimately, that two people who share the same (common) surname must be related or, indeed, in one extraordinary example featuring the second most common English surname, must be the same person. On no evidence whatsoever he begins to speculate that a widowed business-owner might have been enjoying sexual dalliances with her young male apprentices. He assumes a sexual relationship between Marie Mountjoy and her husband's business partner on fairly flimsy evidence and then begins to build other wild assumptions on the foundation of that.
I frequently found myself wishing he had either stuck to the unembroidered facts or had chosen to write a fictionalised account, where his speculation would have been clearly labelled as fantasy, not pseudo-fact.
Another annoying habit is a compulsion to forge unconvincing links to demonstrate "contemporary relevance" - cue forced analogies with the Beckhams, TV shows etc every few pages.
He also can't resist going off at tangents, sometimes interestingly, but sometimes I get the impression he is just trying to show off his research, even when it's clearly not relevant, or just trying desperately to pad out a book which is quite thin (he also frequently repeats material, which might be another padding tactic - either that, or he assumes his readers have the memory of a goldfish).
And (although, in fairness, he acknowledges he is doing it and openly admits that what he is doing is contrary to modern literary scholarship) he starts reading biographical significance into Shakespeare's plays in quite an unconvincing, dated way.
I did enjoy it and learnt some new things about Shakespeare and the period. I thought he was particularly good on analysing Elizabethan/Jacobean plays to support his picture of the contemporary social context. The faults I have outlined above were fairly trivial ones. But annoying. "
— Melaszka, 12/22/2013