Was Shakespeare a Stoner?

[Anonymous No.1889142]

>There exists an endearingly passionate camp of Shakespeare nuts who simply cannot believe that the son of a glover from a podunk market town 100 miles out of London could have possibly written the sublime, genius plays attributed to him. He had no education, they argue, no aristocratic standing, no opportunities to mingle with the literati of his day.

>But what if he had some really, really choice weed?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2011/06/28/was_shakespeare_a_stoner_.html

[Anonymous No.1889151]

It's stupid how they jump to the conclusion that he used these drugs as a ''source of inspiration''..I mean, no, he used them to get high..I disagree usually when people try to connect an artist's productive output with their drug use in some kind of positive, causal way. Burroughs wrote Naked Lunch after he kicked the habit for some time. There are countless other examples. Don't get me wrong..I love drugs..but it is ludicrous to portray them as something which will help you write..potheads do this especially and they irritate me to no end..all this talk about how weed is not harmful, how it helps you be creative..it's like I think they doth protest too much.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1889153]

maybe he has eaten of the insane root that takes the reason prisoner?

[Anonymous No.1889166]

>>1889151

Weed is brilliant for having ideas, and making notes, but if you want to do any sustained writing, and finish a work, then you have to knock it on the head - it destroys your ability to hold ideas together, and it's no fun having a fantastic sentence in your head, then forgetting it before you manage to type the end.

Drugs are great, but not when you need to work. This is as true for a writer as it is for a bus driver.

[Anonymous No.1889169]

>>1889151

bro. go check scientific studies on which parts of the brain get emphasized a lil more when you take a hit.

creativity is all about making neural connections where no one has before. ANYTHING that alters your perception will give you a view you havent seen before, and that will spur creativity more than anything.

now i can agree that you dont become a genius from smoking weed. but you are DEFINITELY more creative.

[Anonymous No.1889171]

>>1889166

haha. i work and smoke all the time.

you just have to learn to manage yourself while you are high. its fun, and when you get back to your own specific creative endeavors, you feel like a wrangler instead of a hunter.

[Anonymous No.1889173]

i kinda hate stoners.

stoners are the christians of drug culture. They preach about their vice at any point they can, refuse to consider alternatives, have created their own niche for culture-exclusive media (music, movies, etc), and are, on average, incredibly boring individuals. This is not an indictment of people who smoke, on the contrary, it's a condemnation of those who present themselves as the type of people who smoke. It's an example of the everlasting battle between people who do a certain activity and people who present themselves as people who do that activity.

[Anonymous No.1889177]

>>1889173

it's because smoking is fun. we can instantly relate to millions of people who do smoke because the rest of society sets it up to be this big devil, and it's encouraging to see how many other people are courageous enough to at least try it.

so, chill out. people have their own tastes, a small fraction of the people i know act like that, its usually just the beginners.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1889179]

if this is true i think it's safe to say we should lose all respect for Shakespeare.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1889180]

ugh.

[Anonymous No.1889181]

>>1889171

Well, whatever works I guess, but I'd be surprised if anyone can produce consistently good creative output whilst stoned all the time.

No moralfag btw - I live in Amsterdam, and I chose my current apartment because it's directly opposite one of my favourite coffeeshops.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1889183]

[Anonymous No.1889189]

>>1889177
>it's because smoking is fun.

I never said it wasn't, but now that you mention it, it's a meager high if you've ever had any other.

> we can instantly relate to millions of people who do smoke because the rest of society sets it up to be this big devil

why though? how could you possibly relate to millions of people just because they use pot? you don't see such a xanax or ritalin or meth subculture. pot subculture members bond over something so incredibly trivial that it becomes irritating.

>and it's encouraging to see how many other people are courageous enough to at least try it.

s/encouraging/validating

>so, chill out.

not until you have a good argument or make a good one against mine.

>a small fraction of the people i know act like that, its usually just the beginners.

perhaps.

[Anonymous No.1889191]

>>1889177

I'm on the blaze weed erryday side of the equation, and I agree with you. I can't stand the fucking weed evengelists in their hemp trousers and their woody harrelson haircuts giving it laldy with the fucking "oh, everybody needs to smoke weed, it will make the world a better place" rebop. They're just as annoying as the kind of cunt who posts these comics

>>1889179
>>1889180
>>1889183

(which are just as much an idiotic generalisation, incidentally).

I've known people who are addicted to the herb and who start getting edgy when they run out, and I've known people who can smoke every day, then stop for a couple of months with no difficulty (I try to have a few months off every year, just so I can finish outstanding projects). Unfortunately, there are altogether too many people whose lives seem to revolve entirely around the acquisition and consumption of weed, but this seems to me to be a function of the illegality of the stuff, often as not. In countries where you can easily pick up weed from the shop (OK, the Netherlands), people use far less, and it takes a far less central position in their lives. I also know hardly any dutch people over 30 who smoke.

I'm not that Amsterdam faggot btw - Amsterdam is for ladyboys, queers and Ajax fans (who are usually queer ladyboys)

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1889195]

>>1889191
>>1889191

>(which are just as much an idiotic generalisation, incidentally).

nope.

[Anonymous No.1889198]

>>1889195

yup

[Anonymous No.1889201]

>>1889195
>implying tripfags are any better than stoners

nope. stoners are the tripfags of meatspace, attempting to stand out with their weed4lyfe showcase just as triptards do with their trips.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1889206]

>>1889201
>>1889201

FACT - Anons shitpost more than tripfags
FACT - 1 singular tripfag thread does not shit up the board
FACT - /lit/ was never 100%, every thread about literature
FACT - /lit/ was never good
FACT - Moaning about tripfags will not make them go away

[Anonymous No.1889214]

>>1889201
>>1889206

And we're back with this shit again.

FACT: Anons and Tripfags are proportionately equal with the percentage of cunts in their constituency, and you're both proving that right now.

There are good tripfags, and good anons, and they tend to stay out of this stupid fucking argument. Enjoy your circular arguments, specious reasoning, and pointless "victories", wankers, I'm out.

[Anonymous No.1889217]

>>1889206
>he thinks putting FACT in front of sentences makes them true
>laughingwhores.jpg

>1 singular tripfag thread does not shit up the board

yes it does.

>/lit/ was never 100%, every thread about literature

never said it was.

>/lit/ was never good

never said it was.

>Moaning about tripfags will not make them go away

never said it would.

are you done debating your imaginary opponent?

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1889226]

>yes it does.
not really, especially when tripfag threads can be about literature (all my threads are)

>never said it was.
but you do seem to be complaining about tripfags posting? Meaning that this board neveer will be 100% about literature when you're so obsessed with us.

>never said it would.
No you just like to get angry and complain about tripfags right? Go complain about the off-topic posts of Anonymous kid.

>implying those FACTS were not FACTS
>implying they were all aimed specifically at what you said and not just your general air of ignorance

[Anonymous No.1889250]

>>1889226
>but you do seem to be complaining about tripfags posting? Meaning that this board neveer will be 100% about literature when you're so obsessed with us.

I have no expectations of greatness from /lit/, I know it will never be 100% literature.

>No you just like to get angry and complain about tripfags right?

Yes. I hate what you represent. I hate you, personally. I hate all of you.

>Go complain about the off-topic posts of Anonymous kid.

I'm not complaining about off-topic posts, are you sure you're replying to me? You sound like Abatap, you only repeat that one thing over an over.

>implying they were all aimed specifically at what you said and not just your general air of ignorance
>I can't be bothered to actually think out an argument, so I'll throw a copypasta in your general direction and hope that will take care of your argument.

[ChampionOfTheLegion !!jLmffO4D1r9 No.1889281]

>>1889206
Fucking right, Brownbear.