In Sex, Literature, and Censorship, Jonathan Dollimore cites an article from 1908 proclaiming the ‘sanity of [Shakespeare's] genius’. Dollimore thinks this judgement wrong. Instead, he argues, Shakespeare expresses – under cover of conventional plots, speeches and so on – highly unconventional perspectives on basic moral, social and other questions: he is a purveyor of ‘dangerous knowledge’ (xii) – a reality that both ‘traditional’ and committed, or politically radical, criticism prefers not to notice. Dollimore rather valiantly assails enlightened critics – those in the habit of dismissing works of art as ‘sexist’, ‘racist’, ‘homophobic’, etc. – as all too often ‘defended against’ the challenges to progressive values such works might present (125). (For instance, a work of art might show that cruelty isn't invariably a product of bad social conditions.) Dollimore sees Shakespeare's sexual imagination as difficult in this way – as anti-social, even sick. Shakespeare is like Iago, a ‘malconent … complicit with what he condemns’.