There is a superb review of James Shapiro's book on the Shakespeare Authorship question - in many ways the first by a Stratfordian that takes the issue at all seriously - 'Contested Will' on the Shakespeare-Oxford Society blog site:
I think Oxfordians of this generation underestimate the element in their own position which leaves them with a feeling of loss of something like a security which inhered in the Stratfordian position. In a sense, they were able to have it both ways. After all, nearly all of us were Stratfordians once.
Mr Wilkinson's partisan infatuation with the Earl of Oxford stops him seeing that the decisions to support one authorship candidate rather than another is based on intuition, not logic. For example, if one starts with the assumption that William Shakespeare of Stratford was indeed the author, then all sorts of cross-connections follow, for instance, that he must have been a pupil of the Stratford grammar school and will have been taught by wise teachers such as Thomas Jenkins
I realised, when I had finished the last post, that I had unwittingly but unerringly been drawn to that mercurial character which Keats recognised in the 'chamelion' poet concept, which is also the heart of the hermetic art of psychotherapy, and, for the most part, is precisely the elusive, quicksilver quality of Shakespeare which people do not want to recognise. It is partly caught by FR Leavis in the following passages: "The inherited habit [of mind] is exemplified by the editor’s footnote, in my old Arden Antony and Cleopatra, to the following passage (Act III, sc.