Coalition aims to expose Shakespeare

[On the Road]

LONDON - The bard, or not the bard, that is the question.
Some of Britain's most distinguished Shakespearean actors have reopened the debate over whether William Shakespeare, a 16th century commoner raised in an illiterate household in Stratford-upon-Avon, wrote the plays that bear his name.

--snip

The "real" author has been identified by various writers in the past as Christopher Marlowe, Francis Bacon, or the Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere.

--snip

The document says there are no records that any William Shakespeare received payment or secured patronage for writing. And it adds that although documents exist for Shakespeare, all are nonliterary.

--snip

It argues there are few connections between Shakespeare's life and his alleged works, but they do show a strong familiarity with the lives of the upper classes and a confident grasp of obscure details from places like Italy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070908/ap_on_re_eu/britain_shakespeare_debate

========

Glad to see this kept in the public eye. I stongly believe deVere was the author. Although I can't understand the fascintation with group authorship -- the scenarios don't make a lot of sense to me.

[applegrove]

1. Some rare people are born with an amazing ability to write. There is

no reason why they could not have been born in the general population. It is a genetic miracle. But it happens today and could have happened in the Shakespear family back 500 years ago. I for one do not believe the naysayers.

[On the Road]

7. It is Perfectly True That Common People Can be Geniuses

It has more to do with what kind of geniuses they turn out to be.

Writers background and personality shine through their works. Shakespeare's plays show a refined, educated monarchist with a detailed knowledge of law, Italy, and a host of other subjects normally familiar only to the nobility. The sonnets show an troubled older voice, sometimes despairing and in distress.

Shakespeare was not only a commoner, he was in his twenties when many of these works appeared. So it's difficult to see where the education and emotional tone would have come from.

If T.S. Eliot's works had been attributed to Jack Kerouac, people would sense a disconnect between the works and the author's autobiography. It would be the same if "Howl" had been published under the name of Robert Frost.

There's actually even more. Some extremely unusual and convoluted events in the plays are paralleled exactly in deVere's biography. It's worthe checking out.

[PetrusMonsFormicarum]

2. The influence of the works

is what really matters. Like other examples of enduring literature, the influence of the works attributed to Shakespeare has been a foundation of our popular culture.

Perhaps Shakespeare was merely the first "star" to truly exploit his celebrity.

Elevation to celebrity made Rodin sign his own name to dozens of sculptures more correctly attributed to his students.

[On the Road]

8. Both New Criticism and Deconstruction

elevate the text and diminish the importance of authorship.

But I believe texts mean different things depending on their authorship. When the speaker changes, the message is never the same.

So while the works are the most important thing, a different author changes their meaning.

[okasha]

3. My money's on Kit Marlowe gone underground

if it wasn't Billy Shakes himself.

[Mythsaje]

4. I can't help but wonder if it wasn't a woman...

It would explain a lot of things. Back then the chances of a woman gaining any kind of arts patronage was nil.

Nothing to base this on, of course. Just an interesting thought that struck me out of the blue.

[momster]

5. Rara Avis

W. Shakespeare was a genius, therefore the ordinary minds of ordinary men cannot grasp how he did what he did. Leonardo Da Vinci was the bastard child of a farm girl but he astounded the world nevertheless. Are we now going to say that he was a committee...one guy for art, one for war, one for masques, etc.? And Mozart would undoubtedly have been Mozart even if Daddy Leopold had been a ditchdigger (okay maybe he wouldn't have started composing until he was 8 instead of 5 or whatever....)

Just because nobody else has Shakespeare's grasp of humanity doesn't mean we should strive to take any from his glory. Maybe he had a photographic memory...maybe he was a great interviewer and could use other people's experiences better than they could themselves. He was a genius. Full stop.

[Diogenes2]

6. Yes! really, REALLY important stuff...

...'bout time we got this Shakespearian authorship thing settled ONCE and for ALL! No mere COMMONER could know so much about the UPPER CLAHSSES! Dear me, no!

[On the Road]

9. What Seriously Amazes Me About the Debate

is that this is virtually the only argument the pro-Shakespeare faction can muster. When it comes to specifics, it's very difficult to defend.

Sir John Gielgud may have been a classist, but Mark Twain and Charlie Chaplin were not.

[pitohui]

10. because only rich people are smart and have talent and can learn

jesus people

didn't isaac asimov have a good essay on this, showing how it HAD to be shakespeare because he made little mistakes a self-taught man would make, as opposed to all these dukes and barons and whatnot who had great educations and the "grand tour" of europe and all that jazz?

i'm thinking the essay was asimov's, been many a year since i read it tho

IIRC many of shakespeare's mistakes were in sciences and astronomy, and it was clear that he did not have current knowledge of this available to the educated classes

but it boiled down to people can't stand that a person "not our kind" had an achievement that is so over-arching as shakespeare's so they've got to take it away from him

people shocked that shakespeare was "mature," where were they in english class, yes, shakespeare was mature and attracted to and i'm pretty sure married an older woman, for starters

some men do listen to the people around them and make inferences about human nature, it is not THAT rare of a once in 500 years type deal

[raccoon]

12. Great post--I'll have to look for that essay. nt

[Bridget Burke]

11. We definitely need to "expose" Shakespeare.

That is--expose more people to actual performances of his plays! Many a droning professor has tried to make his students HATE Will. I remember with distaste a particular Failed Poet Professor at the University of Houston. And his Oedipal interpretation of everything the guy wrote.

Michael Wood's "In Search of Shakespeare" was a fascinating review of Shakespeare's life & times. www.amazon.com/Search-Shakespeare-Michael-Wood/dp/B00019JRFY/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5197758-6337457?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1190129023&sr=8-1

No royalties are needed--so live productions abound. And there are some fine movies.

There's no such thing as bad publicity.