/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16529826]

So did he write them or not? Who is the author. Why would they go through so much trouble?

[Anonymous No.16529829]

There is no credible alternative to William Shakespeare being the author of his plays, although some of the theories are kind of amusing

[Anonymous No.16529833]

>>16529826
BLACK HISTORY IS REAL HISTORY
KNOW YOUR HISTORY KING

[Anonymous No.16529845]

>>16529829
hol up

[Anonymous No.16530455]

>>16529826
>>16529845
how do De Vere fags justify that his actual published poetry was so terrible?
https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/twenty-poems-de-vere/

It is possible he invented him but it doesnt fall in line he wrote them.

[Anonymous No.16530482]

>>16529833
>a white person who went to grammar school was illiterate but a black-o in slave times wrote masterpieces
kek they don't even try anymore

[Anonymous No.16530488]

>>16530455
he obv did that to get people off his trail. this was a secret society proto masonic opp. with implications all the way to today.

[Anonymous No.16530515]

>>16529826
ffs yes he did, we already had this thread a thousand times, greentext your theory and take it to /x/ fucking christ with these people

[Anonymous No.16530560]

>>16530515
it is pretty damning that de vere wrote them. read this:

https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/top-reasons-why-edward-de-vere-17th-earl-of-oxford-was-shakespeare/

it was proto masonic secret society

[Anonymous No.16530617]

>>16530560
Ahh... The latest nonsense argument hot off the Oxfordian Press.

In an attempt to streamline the debate and distract attention a) from all their previous laughable nonsense and b) from the fact that attribution is a hot potato in The Academy at the moment, with collaborative plays under the microscope, this is the newest, glossiest, revised and improved Oxfordian idea of how Elizabethan and Jacobean theatre worked.

There's still absolutely no trace of the Earl at work. Anywhere.

But even they can see that the old rubbish isn't going to wash any more.

So this is the new rubbish.

[Anonymous No.16530621]

>>16530617
If only we could find his name on a title page somewhere.....

If only there was evidence of him in cast lists at the time...

If only one of his fellow playwrights had mentioned him...

It's hard go see what's right in front of you if you live your life with your head in the sand. As blueghost will now demonstrate with his standard 'can't hear you' response.

[Anonymous No.16530641]

Schopenhaeur on genius.

It is a persistent, uninterrupted activity that constitutes the superior mind. The object to which this activity is directed is a matter of subordinate importance; it has no essential bearing on the superiority in question, but only on the individual who possesses it. All that education can do is to determine the direction which this activity shall take; and that is the reason why a man's nature is so much more important than his education. For education is to natural faculty what a wax nose is to a real one; or what the moon and the planets are to the sun. In virtue of his education a man says, not what he thinks himself, but what others have thought and he has learned as a matter of training; and what he does is not what he wants, but what he has been accustomed to do."

[Anonymous No.16530644]

>>16530560

> Consistent style
> Impressive output

Obviously some plays were collaborations, and they're obvious, because of consistent style.

He also had an impressive output, which rules out any creative committee nonsense, as well as anyone that wouldn't have time to do it full time.

Whether or not 'William Shakespeare' is a pen name means nothing. They were written by one playwright who went by William Shakespeare.

[Anonymous No.16530654]

>>16530621

i read somewhere his daughters were illiterate, that he didn't own any books. how could a man, whose supposed works are so linguistically rich, not have owned any books? how could he not have taught his own children to read or write? i don't think de vere wrote them but shakespeare sure as shit didn't

[Anonymous No.16530655]

>>16530644
a playwright who was an African slave girl

[Anonymous No.16530676]

>>16530655
Ah shoot! Good point. Privilege checked.

[Anonymous No.16530793]

>>16530488
what agenda would freemasons have that there is a real good author of poetry who did some stuff. not like he has any conditioning in them forcing you to accept liberalism n' satanism.

[Anonymous No.16531463]

>>16530654
There is no such thing as a Stratfordian.

There is a very small, closet fringe group who believe the Earl of Oxford wrote the plays, now recently retired from public life. There are a lot of other groups who back other candidates. They probably number less than 1,000 individuals in total. These individuals have invented the term 'Strafordian' in an attempt to create the idea that there is doubt and debate and that there is an opposite position engaged with their arguments.

There isn't.

There are a lot of grizzled internet vets who don't intend to let Oxfordians and others proselytise their nonsense in online debate but the gigantic world of Shakespearean scholarship trundles along completely ignoring authorship nutters like those who occasionally chance their arm in here.

They are the ants at Shakespeare's picnic and not many even notice them.

The recent demise of almost all Oxfordian 'arguments' has reduced the creed to its current unattractive cult status, dependent now on Acts of Faith rather than logic or argument.

Hence the OP's pathetic attempt to reduce logic, history and millions of hours of scholarship, over hundreds of years, to matching cult status.

There is nothing, literally nothing, left in the Oxfordian locker. They can't make 50 posts in here without the need to withdraw 45 of them to prevent ridicule.

They are SO over.

[Anonymous No.16531470]

>>16530793
It has to do with two things. First the sheer amount of elitism and arrogance that pervades the anti-Stratfordian movement is astounding. The character assassination that is leveled against Will Shakespeare to elevate Oxford or whoever they support is astonishing. In this the double standard of examination of evidence. If your name is Will Shakespeare you are scum, if its not hey we give you the benefit of the doubt.The blindness in this approach to twisting historical fact because it does not fit their preconceived notion. This isn't how research or science is done. So when people do this just to satisfy their own assumptions is disturbing.

Secondly, its really disgusting that a man is denied his life's work just because he doesn't fit some elitist fantasy. These works weren't handed down from God, they were inspired, worked on, written, re-written, worked over in rehearsals and again revised for special performances by a writer who at times with with other writers and with a specific group of men over 20 years. That WORK, should be recognized and celebrated not just brushed aside because some people think its just couldn't happen. When you ascribe these works that were so obviously written by someone experienced in the theater to some ivory tower schmuck, it denigrates the actual blood, sweat and tears that went into the writing and preservation of these works.

[Anonymous No.16531491]

>>16531470
You obviously know nothing about the life of Oxford or the case for his authorship and seem to have swallowed whole the Shakespeare mythology. Before getting all huffy and spewing all the speculations as facts, I suggest you read a book on the Earl of Oxford and, if you have an open mind beneath all the bluster, I would be happy to recommend some.

[Anonymous No.16531507]

This is true of most Anti-Strats, but not ALL Anti-Strats. I cannot name any names, but I've heard of fringe Anti-Strats who believe that the vast majority of named Elizabethan playwrights were not, in fact, authors of their work, but were fronts for various Elizabethan noblemen who were embarrassed to have their own names attached to plays, so they all engaged commoners to act as their fronts. According to these lunatics, most Elizabethan plays were actually written by noblemen. And there are, of course, Oxfordians who credit the Earl of Oxford with writing the works of most of the major writers of his era. For example, we've all seen the examples of Oxfordians who believe that the young Earl is actually the true translator of Golding's version of Ovid's Metamorphosis.

One double standard that virtually ALL Anti-Strats really are guilty of, without question, is demanding standards of absolute proof for William Shakespeare of Stratford that they NEVER, EVER demand for the Earl of Oxford.

[Anonymous No.16531516]

>>16531463
>>16531470
The Stratfordian idolizes the man he/she doesn't know precisely because they don't know him. They can project themselves or their dreams into this blank slate, then idolize him.

[Anonymous No.16531521]

>>16531516
>>16531507
Before all other descriptors for Oxfordians, "speculative snobs" seems to fit best. Stratfordians are just a little less embarrassing that Oxfordians. None of this crap matters--everything about it reveals a blank space onto which each person projects his or her anxieties. Oxfordians can't bear the thought of a successful playwright who didn't attend Cambridge or Oxford, or adhere to their retroactive requirements for biographical evidence. Stratfordians cling to an obsolete idea of a Great Genius, producing preternatural works of literary gold out of thin air. Both points of view are dumb, and neither are worthy subjects for films. The film market spoke loud and clear on this subject, didn't it?

But here's what makes Oxfordianism worse than Stratfordianism. Any serious scholar knows that Stratfordians are harmless and foolish. Oxfordians, however, take Stratfordians seriously enough to base their entire point of view in opposition to Stratfordianism. In other words, Oxfordians are passionately opposed to a point of view that no one in the know takes seriously. It's like taking to the streets to protest phrenology--no one believes in it any more. So. Dumb.