In my previous post, I printed a review that I (a human) previously wrote concerning The Polesworth Circle, a book/play that I (a human) wrote. In this post, I am presenting a review that CoPilot, Microsoft’s AI-powered assistant, wrote in response to the instruction posed below.

“Write a 1000-word review of The Polesworth Circle by Robert Burdett.”

CoPilot’s review is published below – verbatim; not one word was changed. After the review, I will come back with a few comments on this “non-human” review.

CoPilot’s Initial Response

Absolutely — The Polesworth Circle is one of Robert Charles Burdett’s most ambitious and imaginative works, and it rewards a deep, thoughtful review. What follows is a full, original 1000‑word critical review that explores the book’s structure, themes, historical claims, and literary value.

+++ The Start of Copilot’s Review

A 1000‑Word Review of The Polesworth Circle by Robert Charles Burdett

Robert Charles Burdett’s The Polesworth Circle: The Education of William Shakespeare is an unusual and compelling blend of historical speculation, dramatic reconstruction, and scholarly curiosity. Rather than presenting a conventional academic argument, Burdett crafts a hybrid work—part play, part historical essay, part imaginative reconstruction—that seeks to illuminate a formative but often overlooked period in Shakespeare’s early life. The result is a book that is both intellectually stimulating and creatively daring, inviting readers to reconsider how genius is shaped, nurtured, and influenced by the cultural networks of its time.

At the heart of Burdett’s project is the thesis originally proposed by Arthur Gray, who argued that Shakespeare may have been educated not solely in Stratford but within the intellectual orbit of the Polesworth Circle—a group of literate, culturally engaged figures associated with Polesworth Abbey and the surrounding Warwickshire gentry. Burdett takes this idea and expands it into a vivid narrative, imagining the conversations, relationships, and intellectual exchanges that might have shaped the young Shakespeare. Rather than claiming definitive historical proof, he treats the theory as a creative springboard, using dramatic scenes and character-driven dialogue to explore what such an environment might have looked like.

One of the book’s most engaging qualities is its theatrical structure. Burdett writes much of the text as a play, complete with stage directions, character interactions, and imagined debates among historical figures such as Henry Goodyer, Thomas Burdett, and Raphael Holinshed. This format allows him to animate the intellectual world of Elizabethan England in a way that traditional scholarship rarely attempts. The characters discuss poetry, politics, religion, and the responsibilities of education, creating a lively atmosphere that feels both historically grounded and artistically expressive.

This dramatic approach also reflects Burdett’s broader interest in storytelling as a mode of historical inquiry. He recognizes that the gaps in Shakespeare’s biography—particularly the so‑called “lost years”—invite speculation, but he treats that speculation with respect. His imagined scenes are not wild fantasies but carefully constructed possibilities, informed by documented relationships, geographical proximity, and the cultural milieu of the time. In this sense, the book becomes a meditation on how history is reconstructed: not through certainty, but through thoughtful interpretation of incomplete evidence.

Another strength of The Polesworth Circle is its attention to the intellectual currents that shaped Elizabethan England. Burdett highlights the influence of humanism, the lingering tensions of the Reformation, and the growing importance of vernacular literature. By situating Shakespeare within these broader movements, he avoids the trap of treating genius as an isolated phenomenon. Instead, he presents Shakespeare as a young man shaped by mentors, peers, and the intellectual climate of his region. This contextualization enriches the reader’s understanding of how a provincial youth could develop into the world’s most celebrated playwright.

Burdett’s prose is clear, earnest, and often charmingly idiosyncratic. His background in engineering and structured analysis shows through in the way he organizes information, but he balances this with a genuine affection for narrative and character. The book’s tone is accessible without being simplistic, making it suitable for both Shakespeare enthusiasts and general readers curious about literary history. At times, the transitions between dramatic scenes and explanatory commentary can feel abrupt, but this hybrid structure is also part of the book’s distinctive personality.

One of the most intriguing aspects of the work is Burdett’s portrayal of the Polesworth Circle as a nurturing intellectual community. He emphasizes the importance of mentorship, conversation, and shared inquiry—elements that resonate strongly with modern readers who value collaborative learning. By imagining Shakespeare in this environment, Burdett challenges the romantic myth of the solitary genius and instead presents a more communal model of creativity. This perspective aligns with contemporary scholarship that emphasizes networks, influences, and cultural exchange.

The book also raises interesting questions about the boundaries between history and fiction. Burdett is transparent about the speculative nature of his reconstruction, yet he argues implicitly that imaginative engagement can illuminate truths that strict documentation cannot. In doing so, he participates in a long tradition of historical fiction and creative historiography, where narrative becomes a tool for exploring possibilities rather than asserting certainties. Readers who prefer rigid historical documentation may find this approach unconventional, but those open to interpretive exploration will appreciate the book’s inventive spirit.

If the book has a limitation, it is that its dramatic format occasionally overshadows deeper analysis. Some scenes feel more like imaginative exercises than fully developed arguments, and readers seeking a comprehensive scholarly defense of the Polesworth theory may find the evidence presented somewhat light. However, this is less a flaw than a reflection of the book’s purpose. Burdett is not trying to prove a theory beyond doubt; he is trying to bring a historical possibility to life. In that respect, the book succeeds admirably.

Ultimately, The Polesworth Circle is a thoughtful, creative, and engaging contribution to Shakespearean literature. It invites readers to imagine the young Shakespeare not as an isolated prodigy but as a participant in a vibrant intellectual community. Burdett’s blend of drama, history, and speculation offers a fresh perspective on a familiar subject, demonstrating how storytelling can enrich our understanding of the past. For readers who enjoy literary history, imaginative reconstruction, or simply a well-crafted narrative, this book offers a rewarding and memorable experience.

+++ The End of Copilot’s Review

CoPilot then continued: If you’d like, I can also write a shorter version, a more academic version, or even a comparative review with other Shakespeare‑related works.

My Comments

I was blown away by the review. I was blown away by all the things that I did – that I didn’t know that I did – that I didn’t know I was trying to do: Two examples are repeated below.

·         Burdett highlights the influence of humanism, the lingering tensions of the Reformation, and the growing importance of vernacular literature.

·         Burdett challenges the romantic myth of the solitary genius and instead presents a more communal model of creativity.

I loved the review and found it very flattering – maybe that is what AI does best (so you like it). My own review (previous post) was more critical than the CoPilot review. In that way, artificial intelligence may be smarter than human intelligence.

I could not find any glaring errors in Copilot’s review. I was a little unclear in the review’s reference to my “background in engineering and structured analysis.” I have a background in engineering but not in “structured analysis.” If the term was intended to define an engineering discipline, like “systems analysis” or “operations research,” it was used incorrectly. On the other hand, I would like to consider my analysis as structured (e.g., logical), if CoPilot was using the term in a more general sense.

Next Up: A “Scholarly” CoPilot Review of “The Polesworth Circle”