ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 10,219
For the record, when Othello is played in blackface, even by a banana, it doesn't work.
Last edited:
Shakespeare: so who wrote his stuff?
- Thread starter bigred
- Start date
For the record, when Othello is played in blackface, even by a banana, it doesn't work.
uh yeah actually I can, and quite easily. Disappointing that you would think otherwise.
PS let me know if you're interested in actually discussing this vs taking offense to the idea (? were you releated or something?) and subsequently making silly analogies. Maybe you should start by researching the case for De Vere.
I'd like to discuss it.
I've done so. There's no case to answer -- it's an extended argument from ignorance. ("We don't know that Shakespeare had knowledge of X; therefore he didn't.") If you think there is a case to answer, maybe you should start by presenting it.
No, obviously you don't, since you claim the only case for De Vere is "We don't know that Shakespeare had knowledge of X; therefore he didn't."
Still waiting for you to make a case for Elvis
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
Oswald, though he didn't wriote it alone, of course.
It's so clear, sheeple. WAKE UP!
It's so clear, sheeple. WAKE UP!
I was going for an Elvis banana... But since Elvis wrote Othello, I suppose it works.
buffalocust
Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2005
- Messages
- 228
Based on my admitted limited research, the Francis Bacon theory is way weak and easily dismissable. The De Vere one not so much, I don't "buy it" per se but buy its feasibility, at least for possibly some of his stuff.
Admittedly, haven't read this, but looks interesting...
Book review by Shana Fair from Library Journal; 4/15/2005, Vol. 130 Issue 7, p86-87:
McCrea, Scott.
The Case for Shakespeare: The End of the Authorship Question.
Praeger. 2005. c.220p. illus. bibliog. index.
ISBN 0-275-98527-X. $42.95. LIT
McCrea's position on the authorship question is instantly clear: he refers to those who deny that Will Shakespeare of Stratford is the author of the sonnets and plays credited to him as "heretics." Himself a playwright and faculty member at the Conservatory of Theater Arts and Film at SUNY. McCrea examines all available biographical evidence about the Stratford Shakespeare. Because this evidence is scanty and does not prove or disprove Shakespeare's authorship, he supports his conclusions with ample quotes from primary materials and references to scholarly studies. Readers can judge for themselves whether to agree or disagree. McCrea strengthens his argument by placing information within a larger context rather than just extracting the one phrase that supports his conclusions. For example, some critics assert that the author of the Shakespeare plays must have been a lawyer because of the number of legal terms and issues in the plays. McCrea presents data showing that at least half of 17 other Elizabethan playwrights--none of them lawyers--used more legal terms than Shakespeare. In the second half of the volume, he evaluates arguments supporting other claimants--particularly Edward de Vere--and disposes of them quickly. Recommended for all libraries needing to balance out collections about the authorship question.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
The possibility of ghost authorship and various ruses is always at least conceivable, but I think it is harder to conceal in the case of a working playwright, actor and director, as Shakespeare was. We're not looking at material which was published and attributed and then stayed as written, but in some cases works that were rewritten, re-edited, etc. in the open. Of course we will never know what rumors might have circulated at the time, but in the absence of such rumors, and with evidence that Shakespeare's contemporaries knew him, worked with him, criticized and praised him, and considered him as a colleague, I see no particular reason to imagine such rumors either.
Of course you can take such sources as Will in the World any way you want, but I do recommend that if Shakespeare is really interesting to you, you'll find that book interesting as well, even if you decide it's bunk.
Well I'm glad he approached it with an open mind and objective viewpoint.
PS that's not to say his research/conclusions aren't valid or correct or "good" per se...but it's amazing to me how little objectivity there seems to be about this. Personally I would find it kind of depressing to find out that he didn't write his stuff (or all of it) but just thought the possibility sounded interesting, and find those who feel like sneering at such possibilities without giving them any real consideration lame. For those saying "oh people discrediting his authorship just start out with conclusions and then try to go about proving it," fair enough, I'm sure that is often the case...but seems to me that the other camp does the same thing.
Well I'm glad he approached it with an open mind and objective viewpoint.
PS that's not to say his research/conclusions aren't valid or correct or "good" per se...but it's amazing to me how little objectivity there seems to be about this.
Who's to say that he didn't arrive at the conclusion that the anti-Stratfordians are misguided "heretics"?
I have little patience with the "oh, why don't you have an open mind" argument.
For the record, I have an open mind about almost everything. On the other hand, I'm also a voracious reader with wide interests and a scarily good memory, so there are relatively few topics of general interest that I don't know anything about, from the reading I've already done. I've read at least some of the arguments in favor of the Oxonian theories -- and I find them unpersuasive, basically because they assume that Shakespeare was an ignorant country bumpkin who wasn't capable of self-education, and because the existing writings from the Earl of Oxford are, not to put too fine a point on it, terrible.
So, fine. "Shakespeare couldn't have written his own works, because he didn't have the necessary education." There. I've open-mindedly considered that argument, and rejected it as unpersuasive. Until and unless you can come up with more evidence in favor of that argument, evidence that I have not already considered, that argument remains dead.
"Open-minded" means that I will listen to the evidence you present. It doesn't mean I will stop listening to the other evidence I already have.
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 8,957
Well I'm glad he approached it with an open mind and objective viewpoint.
PS that's not to say his research/conclusions aren't valid or correct or "good" per se...but it's amazing to me how little objectivity there seems to be about this. Personally I would find it kind of depressing to find out that he didn't write his stuff (or all of it) but just thought the possibility sounded interesting, and find those who feel like sneering at such possibilities without giving them any real consideration lame. For those saying "oh people discrediting his authorship just start out with conclusions and then try to go about proving it," fair enough, I'm sure that is often the case...but seems to me that the other camp does the same thing.
I think his comment was born out of the same frustrations genuine space experts feel when faced with moon hoaxers. It's a dim position filled with undiluted woo and popularised by non-schollars (and that's being kind). I agree calling detractors 'heretics' was unhelpful, but I can see where he's coming from.
You're right, I misread it/made the assumption that he started out that way (I have a hunch my assumption is probably still correct, but hard to say for sure either way).
I can't speak for any particular camp going "against" WS, just me...it's not that he couldn't have written his stuff, only that he might not have (or some of it) based on reasons already presented.
You have not yet presented any reasons.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Of course, anything might have happened. But in the absence of any real evidence that Shakespeare was a fake, we would need a persuasive argument to counter the evidence that he was real, of which scholars seem to have found a fair amount when they look hard enough. The question "how could he have written what he did given his education," has been answered pretty elegantly, I think, by several authors including Greenblatt and Harold Bloom (despite the fact that Bloom is a bit of a windbag) who have looked carefully at Shakespeare's actual education, the curriculum involved, and the popular literary sources from which he drew his material.
...for the 2d time, they are readily avail on the 'net. Pass on the typing exercise.
Elentar
Scholar
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2005
- Messages
- 53
I knew a conspiracy theorist who believed that Shakespeare's plays were written by someone else. Again, another conspiracy theory. Occam's razor alone should be enough to dispel this one. He was in the company that performed them, held a much larger stake in the company than would have been given to a bit part actor (which is all he would have been if he were not the writer), was credited with them by all of his contemporaries, had the background, education, and inclination to write them, and there is no plausible reason why anyone else would have given up both the fame and the money by allowing someone else to claim their work.
Someone else could have written the plays? Yeah, and there could be a teapot orbitting the sun. You get the idea.
Someone else could have written the plays? Yeah, and there could be a teapot orbitting the sun. You get the idea.
You have not yet presented any reasons for the Elvis theory either.
For now I'll take your word for all that based on what (admittedly limited) data I've seen, eg I haven't seen evidence that he was or wasn't generally credited with them by his contemporaries.
From what I gather it's debatable (if that) that he had either the background or education, actually. But regardless, as some have pointed out, specific backgrounds or formal education are far from the "be-all/end-all" to knowledge. As to inclination, none of us really have any idea what his inclinations were.
ie in your opinion, since you don't know of or can't think of one. Sorry, but as much as you try to state it as such, that's not a fact. Again suggest a little research on De Vere and you will find some...although I'm sure you will dismiss them as implausible before even reading them (PS and oh btw perhaps they are; offhand I'm not convinced either way).
I get the idea of another person who for some strange reason seems to somehow be offended by the idea, so they make silly analogies and act like it's impossible for any of this to be true...which is indeed about as silly as a teapot "orbitting" the sun. Fan of Elvis' prose are ya?
yeesh - never mind