Any Shakespeare Buffs?

[sablebrush52]

I read some plays for classes in high school and college, and some on my own, and I had an excellent course in Shakespeare on Film in grad school. There's a reason five or six plays get all the theater performances and film, but even the less known plays have that amazing language. I'm no Shakespeare scholar, and I suppose the plays could have been written by some of the other suspects, but I think a brilliant hyperkinetic son of a glover in Stratford on Avon could have easily read enough and known enough to do these. People are so foolish about formal education. There are so many examples where it didn't help or wasn't needed. I suspect if the glover's son had gone to Oxford, they'd have wrung the language out of him.

Genius shows up where genius shows up. It doesn't belong to the socially or financially privileged.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

For a guy who wrote "Brevity is the soul of wit" he can sure go on & on.

 

[haparnold]

Genius shows up where genius shows up. It doesn't belong to the socially or financially privileged.

While I agree with y'all that genius is not limited to members of the upper class, what is particularly striking about the idea that the "Man from Stratford" was the author of 38 plays, 150-something sonnets, and at least two lyric poems is that once Shakespeare returned to Stratford from his time in London, he seems to have completely forsaken any life of the mind (he didn't leave behind any books or manuscripts in his will, and there is no record of him ever sending a letter to anyone).

There are many examples of people from humble circumstances educating themselves (Nathaniel Bowditch, Robert Burns, Benjamin Franklin, etc.). But not only does the historical record typically preserve anecdotes of these precocious youths borrowing books from wealthy neighbors, etc. they also, without exception, retained their love of learning throughout their lives. What is suspicious to me about Shakespeare is the idea that he somehow came from illiterate parents to be the single most literate person in the history of the English-speaking peoples, and completely turned his back on that life to live as a functional illiterate after reaching his forties.

I don't really have a "dog in the hunt" on the authorship question. But I'm open-minded enough to accept that there are enough oddities in Shakespeare's biography to at least leave the door open for another author.

 

[workman]

I've read some of the best known plays and a few sonnets. English isn't my first language, and Shakespeare's english is a challenge.
I got the most out of an annotated edition of Macbeth we read back in high school. I still have it tucked away somewhere.
I plan to find similar editions of at least King Lear and Hamlet.
My father has made and published a translation of Othello, so it runs in the family.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

 

[mso489]

I had a very eccentric young French teacher when I was a high school freshman. He was finally fired for his many infractions, but he was a fascinating character and smart. He'd spot a student with a paperback of the complete plays and tell them to read any line from any play, and he could recite the next ten. It was staggering. He either went on to do miracles or exploded in his own brilliance. He told me I spoke French (which I barely did) with a German accent. He'd always rate his students for being cool or not cool while in class. He always rated me cool, which was not my classmates' assessment at all. I told you he was smart.

 

[mso489]

The best performance of Romeo and Juliet I ever saw was done by a local high school. The students really got into the parts, and since it is in part about adolescence angst, and family stress, they had the material down cold. Mercurio was the best acting job I've seen in the part.

 

[mso489]

A line that often occurs to me, from Hamlet:

"So I have heard and do in part believe."

Which I would apply to nearly everything I've ever heard.

Correction on above post: adolescent angst... sorry.

 

[sablebrush52]

While I agree with y'all that genius is not limited to members of the upper class, what is particularly striking about the idea that the "Man from Stratford" was the author of 38 plays, 150-something sonnets, and at least two lyric poems is that once Shakespeare returned to Stratford from his time in London, he seems to have completely forsaken any life of the mind (he didn't leave behind any books or manuscripts in his will, and there is no record of him ever sending a letter to anyone).

There are many examples of people from humble circumstances educating themselves (Nathaniel Bowditch, Robert Burns, Benjamin Franklin, etc.). But not only does the historical record typically preserve anecdotes of these precocious youths borrowing books from wealthy neighbors, etc. they also, without exception, retained their love of learning throughout their lives. What is suspicious to me about Shakespeare is the idea that he somehow came from illiterate parents to be the single most literate person in the history of the English-speaking peoples, and completely turned his back on that life to live as a functional illiterate after reaching his forties.

I don't really have a "dog in the hunt" on the authorship question. But I'm open-minded enough to accept that there are enough oddities in Shakespeare's biography to at least leave the door open for another author.

There are arguments for and against various claimants, such as Bacon, Oxford, Marlow, or a committee. The consensus still is that some yokel from Stratford penned them.

There are other illustrious names who, having made their pile, withdrew from further productivity and lazed around for the rest of their lives. Giacomo Rossini, he of The Barber Of Seville fame, who could write a hit money making opera as fast as it could be sung, did just that and spent much of his later life partying and having a good time.

Of course, the Globe burning to the ground taking all of the manuscripts with it didn't help. Even the Folios have been messed with, especially the later 18th century editions. Shakespeare, Shakespeare, wherefore art thou Shakespeare?

 

[mso489]

I think Bill was energized by theater companies and put all of his literary energies into the plays and sonnets. A readership, or in this case, a large ongoing audience, fueled his writing, and probably allowed him access to the histories and lore that framed his plays. Why should he write letters when he could cumulatively speak to thousands with each new play over the course of its run. He liked and needed the money and was too enraptured in his own thoughts to lend too much emotion to his relationships, hence parking his wife in Statford for most of his career and leaving her his "second best bed." None of this makes him likable, but it explains how he could be so prolific. Nothing is more maddening to strict academics than someone who did without them. From what I know of human nature, no one could have written, produced and acted those plays without taking all credit and a little extra if possible. I say Bill did them.

 

[Jacob74]

Ah, The Bard! Why man, he doth bestride the narrow world like a colossus!
In my opinion, Shakespeare's profundity was in how he used his language and ingenuity to blend the most key tropes of storytelling with enough history and mythology to deeply reach and touch anyone in his culture, no matter how well educated. It's all things to the western mind. Upper crust to peasant, high table to gutter, Shakespeare enchants and delights.

 

[jpmcwjr]

Ah, Ashland and the Oregon Shakespeare Festival!

Was involved with a Marin County Shakespeare outfit that put on very good plays in an open amphitheater and also sponsored trips to Ashland. It was a joy, but then I moved away and interest waned.

"Brush up your Shakespeare!
Start quoting him now,
Brush up your Shakespeare,
And the women you will wow."

 

[anotherbob]

I'm not, but back years ago when my wife and I were in Chapel Hill to watch a basketball game, we accidentally ran across Shakespeare in the buff on the UNC campus...

View attachment 61341

This isn't one of the actual pictures we took of course, my wife was totally embarrassed...I stayed and watched for a while though

Yeah I thought that might be what this post was about.

 

[workman]

While I agree with y'all that genius is not limited to members of the upper class, what is particularly striking about the idea that the "Man from Stratford" was the author of 38 plays, 150-something sonnets, and at least two lyric poems is that once Shakespeare returned to Stratford from his time in London, he seems to have completely forsaken any life of the mind (he didn't leave behind any books or manuscripts in his will, and there is no record of him ever sending a letter to anyone).

There are many examples of people from humble circumstances educating themselves (Nathaniel Bowditch, Robert Burns, Benjamin Franklin, etc.). But not only does the historical record typically preserve anecdotes of these precocious youths borrowing books from wealthy neighbors, etc. they also, without exception, retained their love of learning throughout their lives. What is suspicious to me about Shakespeare is the idea that he somehow came from illiterate parents to be the single most literate person in the history of the English-speaking peoples, and completely turned his back on that life to live as a functional illiterate after reaching his forties.

I don't really have a "dog in the hunt" on the authorship question. But I'm open-minded enough to accept that there are enough oddities in Shakespeare's biography to at least leave the door open for another author.

As far as I know, there is no real evidence to back the claims of someone else as the writer.
Scheptizism is good, and the fact that scholars don't believe every tradition is good, but there is also an urge to discover something sensational.
I read a little about a theory that the auther must have been a woman. There were papers upon papers, but what it all boiled down to was that for the time he had written some unusually deep and multifacetted female characters, thus he must be a woman.
That seemed shallow to me at best, fraudulous at worst, to make such a claim with nothing to back it, except that he seems to have been able to imagine depth in character also in women.
So be scheptic, also of the scheptic.

 

[mso489]

Actually, being a little below the salt probably invigorated his literary ambitions. England has always had an exaggerated class system--more rungs than an extension ladder-- so being a mere glover's son was probably an unending irritant, and made the joy of putting words into the mouthes of kings and tyrants all the more satisfying.

 

[anantaandroscoggin]

Also, many of the clichés we still use nowadays first appeared in Shakespeare's plays.

 

[finnian3]

I am a fan. His lines, like Euripides before him, are accents to a life observed.

 

[JOHN72]

 

[anotherbob]

As far as I know, there is no real evidence to back the claims of someone else as the writer.
Scheptizism is good, and the fact that scholars don't believe every tradition is good, but there is also an urge to discover something sensational.
I read a little about a theory that the auther must have been a woman. There were papers upon papers, but what it all boiled down to was that for the time he had written some unusually deep and multifacetted female characters, thus he must be a woman.
That seemed shallow to me at best, fraudulous at worst, to make such a claim with nothing to back it, except that he seems to have been able to imagine depth in character also in women.
So be scheptic, also of the scheptic.

from my understanding there is kind of this thing about trying to prove or at least have theories that it wasn't him but.... I guess it's kind of a super nerd fan theory thing. If I also understand correctly part od the issue is there wasn't intellectual property back then so putting your name on someone elses play wasn't the huge bad big no no it is now.