http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iL3anNkTAAllqOoLBxSPeHA6k78A


Coalition Aims to Expose Shakespeare

your thoughts?

madeyemoody

 

I've never really cared. Homer was almost certainly not the only creator (perhaps not even the creator) of the Odessey, but we still put his name by it.

George Orwell's real name was Eric Arthur Blair.

Dr. Seuss's was really named Theodor Geisel.

So what "William Shakespeare" is naught but a pen name with a living correspondent.

Edit: Can you edit the pole it include indifference?

 

Thats what I wanted to see as well. I'm partial to the idea that Shakespeare was just a pen name for some noble who didn't want his, or in some theory's her, name on the rather raunchy plays Shakespear produced.

 

Edit to add indifference.

And I personally don't care who wrote them. They are just classic literature. If these people would focus more on our day and age, instead of hundreds of years in the past, they might achieve something worthwhile.

It isnt the first "change" in history, or the first person to get credit for what they didn't do. Like Paul Revere, he didnt ride the "Midknight Ride" he is accredited for. He only went to Charleston or something like that. I'll edit when I remember who DID do it.

And to correct Death's Minor mistake: Homer didn't almost not write the Illyad and the Odyessy. He didn't write them at all. He was merely the first person to put them on paper.

And with names like Odyessus, Aphrodite, Hecate, and Medae; Homer just seems out of place. >_> But Scylla rawks my secks sawks.

 

I don't think it matters either. No one reads the books because there a Shakespeare. You read them (or forced to read them) because of the literary worth the books have.

I also don't see what asking these questions solve other then having people go "huh maybe he didn't write it". Because I think this debate has been going on for a number of years now and no proof has ever been found.
And even if proof was ever found the majority of people wouldn't believe it (or choose not to) because they've grown up with so much mention of Shakespeare.

 

Romeo and Juliet is crap. It has no literary worth. I hate it.

 

I'm with death on this one. Quite a bit of the stuff Shakespeare wrote is shit. Turn Romeo and Juliet into current English and what do you get? A shitty emo fic with a douchebaggy dude and a whiney little bitch. Same with Macbeth for that matter.

Edit: Hamlet, while I hate having to read old timey English, is decent, mainly cause almost everyone dies a violent death.

 

I like Macbeth, I enjoy the subtext about the instability that changing gender roles in a relationship brings.

Hamlet always makes me think of good ol' Mel, Mel Gibson that is. I don't like him.

 

Meh, there have been conspiracy theories about Shakespeare (and attempts to 'expose' him) for years. I've heard the Earl of Oxford one a bunch of times, and the Francis Bacon one. Personally, I think he did write them, but even if he didn't, I don't give a crap. Even if you don't like the plots (I agree about Romeo and Juliet sucking, but I really like a few of his other one, and the sonnets), they are works of technical genius, and should be admired. Who wrote them doesn't matter now- everyone is dead, no one gets the royalties.

Edit: If I remember correctly, Vash, Romeo and Juliet isn't original either. He based the plot on another book written a generation before him. It was either R&J or A Winters Tale, but one of them was copied.

Edit 2: It's both. R&J, and A Winter's Tale.

 

I don't really care about that, like Lorelei said they are all dead.

But one question remains:
Two beer or not two beer.
By Shakesbeer.

 

Romeo and Juliet was stolen. He stoal the plots for more then one play though, so A Winter's Tale might have been as well.

 

This really isn't news. . . People have been debating dear old Shakes for quite some time.

 

Tristan and Isolde is older than R&J.

 

Fuck Shakespeare.

My review of Romeo and Juliet.

Characterization: Superficial.

Plot: Overdone.

Deeper meaning: None.

Readability: None.

Attempts at humor: Unoriginal.

 

Romeo and Juliet was crap, and anyone who says that Midsummers Night Dream was funny is either:
a) Lying to make themselves sound like literary geniuses.
b) Plain ol' odd in their sense of humour
or c) On crack at the time.

As You Like It is okay, as is Twelfth Night. Personally, I don't care who wrote them. Half the books I like, I have no clue who did.

 

His marriage certificate was signed William Shagspeare...

 

I liked romeo and Juliet.

It was good.

Shakespeare was a talented writer but he is dead now.

Woah, did I just point out the obvious? Holy shit, I don't want to alarm you guys but I think I might be sherlock holmes.

Ok enough jokey jokey, shakespeare is a classic writer, much loved by people all over the world. Does it matter if he was a pen name? Honestly what difference does it make? For that matter, did you know that catterpillers have noses in their stomachs?

My point is that it makes no difference.

 

... telling me that it's pointless to find out the truth about history is ... well, one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard. Where the hell would the world be if we didn't know at least some form -though a bias form- of the truth? Don't tell me little things don't matter because if we let go the little things then we'd of let go of everything that made our cultures what they are.

 

Romeo and Juliet was probably a parody of something that happened between a couple of nobles. Remember that Shakespeare was infamous for doing things like that.

The name is most likely just a pen name like Vash or Tinn Tam or Swimdraconian. They're not our real names - I sure as hell am not going to attach my real name to the shit I write.

 

I believe he did write all his own stuff, he was a literature genius and a celebrity in his time. Just because he came from a illiterate background does not mean he was illiterate himself.

Quite a lot of his work is fiction based on real people and battles etc that happened during and before his time.