The problem is mostly that it’s a terrible play. I’m not saying it wasn’t a decent play at one time or another during its history–I’m quite fond of the Fletcher-Shakespeare collaborations that weren’t ‘discovered’ by Theobald–but it certainly isn’t one now, and probably wasn’t one even when Theobald got his oft-travestied hands on it.
I’m not one of the geeks standing in line to see this “new” “Shakespeare” play (I couldn’t decide which word to stick air quotes around, they’re both equally incorrect :)), but Mad Shakespeare’s got the review. Although the reviewer has praise for the lead actress, the one doesn’t sound like the world’s been missing too much.
I'm interested only in reading it for comparison's sake; you know, to see for myself what passes for "proof" nowadays. Commercial publishing houses aren't the only entities capable of decent dramaturgy. Other than that, the circumstances and raw conjecture surrounding it aren't strengthened by "mounting a production"; particularly one sanctioned so loudly by the person who has the most to gain by having it produced. Did I mention something in another thread about the similarity of what "new" means to discovery, technology–and publishing? I think I also questioned Arden'$ motive$ from the beginning (as I found out later, so did Ron Rosenbaum–I'll see if I can re-locate the article). For the time being, my opinion holds, and it is…pish-tosh!
In case you haven't seen it yet here's the Rosenbaum article. –Some very interesting comments about it also.
http://www.slate.com/id/2253826/