He was a rustic tradesman from Warwickshire
No evidence he ever went to school
He couldn't remember how to spell his own name
He owned no books
He wrote no letters and received none from anyone
He didn't teach his own daughters to read or write (nor his wife)
No evidence he wrote anything (except - supposedly - the plays and sonnets)
He is supposed to have referenced works of literature written in multiple languages that he did not speak (Latin, Greek, Italian, French) and that had not yet - at that time - been translated into English
His son-in-law ~ when writing about writers and poets of his day ~ seemed completely unaware of Shakespeare's alleged feats as a writer
Never acknowledged or mentioned ~ or feted as the 'best known dramatist of his age' ~ by any literary commentators or diarists during his life time
And so on...
Originally posted by FMF (OP)"When a father gives to his son, both laugh; when a son gives to his father, both cry." ~William Shakespeare
He was a rustic tradesman from Warwickshire
No evidence he ever went to school
He couldn't remember how to spell his own name
He owned no books
He wrote no letters and received none from anyone
He didn't teach his own daughters to read or write (nor his wife)
No evidence he wrote anything (except - supposedly - the plays and sonnets)
He is ...[text shortened]... ramatist of his age' ~ by any literary commentators or diarists during his life time
And so on...
Originally posted by FMFHis works weren't written by him, but by an other guy named Shakespeare...
He was a rustic tradesman from Warwickshire
No evidence he ever went to school
He couldn't remember how to spell his own name
He owned no books
He wrote no letters and received none from anyone
He didn't teach his own daughters to read or write (nor his wife)
No evidence he wrote anything (except - supposedly - the plays and sonnets)
He is s ...[text shortened]... tist of his age' ~ by any literary commentators or diarists during his life time
And so on...
I don't have a problem with naming Shakespeare as the author of all the work. It could be any name at all - it's so far removed from our lives now that the author could be called "Blind Freddy" and it wouldn't make any difference to anyone at all. It's of interest only to a group of people playing name games.
Originally posted by KewpieI think there are countless academics and writers who have everything invested in their analysis assuming all the work was produced by the same person. Certainly the theory that one man wrote them is a stance replete with vested interests.
I don't have a problem with naming Shakespeare as the author of all the work. It could be any name at all - it's so far removed from our lives now that the author could be called "Blind Freddy" and it wouldn't make any difference to anyone at all. It's of interest only to a group of people playing name games.
Originally posted by FMFMy own opinion is that he was a producer/director.
He was a rustic tradesman from Warwickshire
No evidence he ever went to school
He couldn't remember how to spell his own name
He owned no books
He wrote no letters and received none from anyone
He didn't teach his own daughters to read or write (nor his wife)
No evidence he wrote anything (except - supposedly - the plays and sonnets)
He is s ...[text shortened]... tist of his age' ~ by any literary commentators or diarists during his life time
And so on...
A Spielberg of his time.
Probably re-wrote many of "his" plays as they were performed.
I think we can safely say he was "responsible" for the plays.
