Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 19:08:42 GMT
9/11 was an outside job, we really did land on the moon, and Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. Go to the conspiracy board and all that flies out the window. There's a wealth of serious scholarship that disputes this as absolute fact. No, there is a wealth is classicist snobbery that disputes the claim. It's just people who don't want to believe an ordinary working-class man could have inspired millions throughout the generations. If you actually bothered to study the plays themselves and took a look at the environment that spawned them, you'd see the man who wrote them wasn't just some Blue Blood sending the plays in through the mail, and several Shakespearean actors have said the man who wrote them had to be a man of the theater. So, no. It is pure nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 29, 2017 19:37:43 GMT
There's a wealth of serious scholarship that disputes this as absolute fact. No, there is a wealth is classicist snobbery that disputes the claim. It's just people who don't want to believe an ordinary working-class man could have inspired millions throughout the generations. If you actually bothered to study the plays themselves and took a look at the environment that spawned them, you'd see the man who wrote them wasn't just some Blue Blood sending the plays in through the mail, and several Shakespearean actors have said the man who wrote them had to be a man of the theater. So, no. It is pure nonsense. You're out of your element here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 19:40:06 GMT
No, there is a wealth is classicist snobbery that disputes the claim. It's just people who don't want to believe an ordinary working-class man could have inspired millions throughout the generations. If you actually bothered to study the plays themselves and took a look at the environment that spawned them, you'd see the man who wrote them wasn't just some Blue Blood sending the plays in through the mail, and several Shakespearean actors have said the man who wrote them had to be a man of the theater. So, no. It is pure nonsense. You're out of your element here. Tearing that claim apart is going to be so satisfying. So, tell me, colden, what do you know about writing a new play for a specific theater company?
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 29, 2017 19:51:44 GMT
You're out of your element here. Tearing that claim apart is going to be so satisfying. So, tell me, colden, what do you know about writing a new play for a specific theater company? We're not doing your lame attempt at rhetorical rope-a-dope with leading questions that are predictable from a mile away. Furthermore, that has nothing to do with the historicity of Shakespeare.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 20:12:09 GMT
Tearing that claim apart is going to be so satisfying. So, tell me, colden, what do you know about writing a new play for a specific theater company? We're not doing your lame attempt at rhetorical rope-a-dope with leading questions that are predictable from a mile away. Furthermore, that has nothing to do with the historicity of Shakespeare. We're not doing your lame attempt at backing out the instant you realized you've lost. Furthermore, it has everything to do with the historicity of Shakespeare, because a original plays written for a specific theater have to take a great number of factors into consideration. The person who wrote Shakespeare's plays would have to be intimately familiar with the theater company in question, called the King's Men, via being a member of it and working the other employees on a daily basis. In Shakespeare's case, he was also an actor and a manager at the theater, which gives him especially intimate knowledge of the company's assets. To expand on that, the playwright would have to know the numbers in the company's budget, earnings, and know their chances of getting more funds if need be. They would have to take stock on pre-existing costumes, sets, and props, and IF the company could make or purchase anything new for the play. The parts were written for specific actors with specific strengths and weaknesses, so the playwright would have worked closely with them for many years and be familiar with them to cast them correctly. The writer also had to know what their usual customers liked to see at their theater, another thing specifically about their company to take into account. So far, the requirements compiled are: -knowing the budget, earnings, and prospects of attaining more funding -knowing the actors -knowing the technical aspects in and out -knowing the audience So what happens if a play is written by an outsider who doesn't have this very specific wealth of knowledge? A play that has to be tossed out or heavily re-written by the people who work there until it fits within their capabilities. The assumption that someone else wrote Shakespeare's plays for him creates more busywork and hoops to jump through than the simplest and most logical conclusion: William Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 29, 2017 20:20:37 GMT
We're not doing your lame attempt at rhetorical rope-a-dope with leading questions that are predictable from a mile away. Furthermore, that has nothing to do with the historicity of Shakespeare. We're not doing your lame attempt at backing out the instant you realized you've lost. Furthermore, it has everything to do with the historicity of Shakespeare, because a original plays written for a specific theater have to take a great number of factors into consideration. The person who wrote Shakespeare's plays would have to be intimately familiar with the theater company in question, called the King's Men, via being a member of it and working the other employees on a daily basis. In Shakespeare's case, he was also an actor and a manager at the theater, which gives him especially intimate knowledge of the company's assets. To expand on that, the playwright would have to know the numbers in the company's budget, earnings, and know their chances of getting more funds if need be. They would have to take stock on pre-existing costumes, sets, and props, and IF the company could make or purchase anything new for the play. The parts were written for specific actors with specific strengths and weaknesses, so the playwright would have worked closely with them for many years and be familiar with them to cast them correctly. The writer also had to know what their usual customers liked to see at their theater, another thing specifically about their company to take into account. So far, the requirements compiled are: -knowing the budget, earnings, and prospects of attaining more funding -knowing the actors -knowing the technical aspects in and out -knowing the audience So what happens if a play is written by an outsider who doesn't have this very specific wealth of knowledge? A play that has to be tossed out or heavily re-written by the people who work there until it fits within their capabilities. The assumption that someone else wrote Shakespeare's plays for him creates more busywork and hoops to jump through than the simplest and most logical conclusion: William Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. That's your big thesis? It must've been Shakespeare because it's the "simplest" explanation? Aw, dude. You never disappoint.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 20:24:34 GMT
We're not doing your lame attempt at backing out the instant you realized you've lost. Furthermore, it has everything to do with the historicity of Shakespeare, because a original plays written for a specific theater have to take a great number of factors into consideration. The person who wrote Shakespeare's plays would have to be intimately familiar with the theater company in question, called the King's Men, via being a member of it and working the other employees on a daily basis. In Shakespeare's case, he was also an actor and a manager at the theater, which gives him especially intimate knowledge of the company's assets. To expand on that, the playwright would have to know the numbers in the company's budget, earnings, and know their chances of getting more funds if need be. They would have to take stock on pre-existing costumes, sets, and props, and IF the company could make or purchase anything new for the play. The parts were written for specific actors with specific strengths and weaknesses, so the playwright would have worked closely with them for many years and be familiar with them to cast them correctly. The writer also had to know what their usual customers liked to see at their theater, another thing specifically about their company to take into account. So far, the requirements compiled are: -knowing the budget, earnings, and prospects of attaining more funding -knowing the actors -knowing the technical aspects in and out -knowing the audience So what happens if a play is written by an outsider who doesn't have this very specific wealth of knowledge? A play that has to be tossed out or heavily re-written by the people who work there until it fits within their capabilities. The assumption that someone else wrote Shakespeare's plays for him creates more busywork and hoops to jump through than the simplest and most logical conclusion: William Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. That's your big thesis? It must've been Shakespeare because it's the "simplest" explanation? Aw, dude. You never disappoint. If I'm wrong, show me where I'm wrong. This'll be good for a laugh. I haven't even touched on the plays, themselves, yet, and I've already destroyed the Anti-Stratfordian school of thought.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 29, 2017 20:28:21 GMT
That's your big thesis? It must've been Shakespeare because it's the "simplest" explanation? Aw, dude. You never disappoint. If I'm wrong, show me where I'm wrong. This'll be good for a laugh. I haven't even touched on the plays, themselves, yet, and I've already destroyed the Anti-Stratfordian school of thought. You haven't destroyed anything. You've just made a handful of baseless assertions; the burden of proof isn't on me, it's on you as you're one claiming definitively that Shakespeare wrote all his plays. I just said there was doubt. And all you've done to the effect of proving it is to assert that it must've been Shakespeare because he's only person who ever lived before or since that could've possibly had intimate knowledge of a theater company in England. Seems like a gross oversimplification and no proof of anything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 20:44:06 GMT
If I'm wrong, show me where I'm wrong. This'll be good for a laugh. I haven't even touched on the plays, themselves, yet, and I've already destroyed the Anti-Stratfordian school of thought. You haven't destroyed anything. You've just made a handful of baseless assertions; the burden of proof isn't on me, it's on you as you're one claiming definitively that Shakespeare wrote all his plays. I just said there was doubt. And all you've done to the effect of proving it is to assert that it must've been Shakespeare because he's only person who ever lived before or since that could've possibly had intimate knowledge of a theater company in England. Seems like a gross oversimplification and no proof of anything. ...You're an idiot. These assertions aren't baseless, because my argument relies on the playwright being a part of the day-to-day operations of The King's Men theater company, and being familiar with the inner-workings and regular cast and crew members of a daily professional basis. I've actually worked in a theater that wrote some of it's own plays as a crew member. I've seen how it works. The playwright can't just waltz in with a script or send one in the mail. They actually have to work with the theater company/community to write a play that's functional by the capabilities and limitations of employees and budget. Sounds like a lot of people get involved, doesn't it? And you know what they say about secrets? The more people who are in it, the more likely it is to get out. In order for Shakespeare to have not written Shakespeare, the "true" author would still have to have been working with the crew and cast on a regular basis, which means basically EVERYONE in The King's Men would have had to be in on it. Nobody on the outside noticed? Give me a break, you Anti-Stratfordian freak.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 29, 2017 20:45:40 GMT
You haven't destroyed anything. You've just made a handful of baseless assertions; the burden of proof isn't on me, it's on you as you're one claiming definitively that Shakespeare wrote all his plays. I just said there was doubt. And all you've done to the effect of proving it is to assert that it must've been Shakespeare because he's only person who ever lived before or since that could've possibly had intimate knowledge of a theater company in England. Seems like a gross oversimplification and no proof of anything. Give me a break, you Anti-Stratfordian freak.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 20:50:06 GMT
Give me a break, you Anti-Stratfordian freak. Look, everyone, the idiot knows he's been backed into a corner and has no counterargument!
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 29, 2017 20:59:33 GMT
Look, everyone, the idiot knows he's been backed into a corner and has no counterargument! You're too far up your own ass in this regard to even have anything resembling a discourse. Who knew you were such a Shakespeare mark? I almost respect your dogmatic devotion to everything you like.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 21:20:07 GMT
Look, everyone, the idiot knows he's been backed into a corner and has no counterargument! You're too far up your own ass in this regard to even have anything resembling a discourse. Who knew you were such a Shakespeare mark? I almost respect your dogmatic devotion to everything you like. Yeah, the man who discounts the need to actually work with a theater company to write a play for them doesn't get to criticize me in any capacity. So tell me, colden, if Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare, who did? And before you list any of the Blue Blooded alternatives, I will mention that the man who wrote Shakespeare's plays thought Padua had a harbor, Bohemia had a coastline, France had lions, and ancient Rome had clocks. At the end of the day, the only reason the Anti-Stratfordian way of thought even exists is because Shakespeare was a middle class kid born into a nobody family who didn't have a university degree (though we know he was educated, because we have his signature). They think his plays are so brilliant, so polished, so divine that only someone of high education and a vast wealth of knowledge could have written them (despite the geological discrepancies I just pointed out). Why the same isn't suspected of Maya Angelou, Mark Twain, Truman Capote, Charles Dickens, or Ray Bradbury is anyone's guess.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 29, 2017 21:36:46 GMT
You're too far up your own ass in this regard to even have anything resembling a discourse. Who knew you were such a Shakespeare mark? I almost respect your dogmatic devotion to everything you like. Yeah, the man who discounts the need to actually work with a theater company to write a play for them doesn't get to criticize me in any capacity. So tell me, colden, if Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare, who did? And before you list any of the Blue Blooded alternatives, I will mention that the man who wrote Shakespeare's plays thought Padua had a harbor, Bohemia had a coastline, France had lions, and ancient Rome had clocks. At the end of the day, the only reason the Anti-Stratfordian way of thought even exists is because Shakespeare was a middle class kid born into a nobody family who didn't have a university degree (though we know he was educated, because we have his signature). They think his plays are so brilliant, so polished, so divine that only someone of high education and a vast wealth of knowledge could have written them (despite the geological discrepancies I just pointed out). Why the same isn't suspected of Maya Angelou, Mark Twain, Truman Capote, Charles Dickens, or Ray Bradbury is anyone's guess.
I've never heard the controversy spun as being solely and exclusively classist but rather that the plays evince a knowledge of things "a middle class kid born into a nobody family" would be less likely to've known.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 21:44:27 GMT
Yeah, the man who discounts the need to actually work with a theater company to write a play for them doesn't get to criticize me in any capacity. So tell me, colden, if Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare, who did? And before you list any of the Blue Blooded alternatives, I will mention that the man who wrote Shakespeare's plays thought Padua had a harbor, Bohemia had a coastline, France had lions, and ancient Rome had clocks. At the end of the day, the only reason the Anti-Stratfordian way of thought even exists is because Shakespeare was a middle class kid born into a nobody family who didn't have a university degree (though we know he was educated, because we have his signature). They think his plays are so brilliant, so polished, so divine that only someone of high education and a vast wealth of knowledge could have written them (despite the geological discrepancies I just pointed out). Why the same isn't suspected of Maya Angelou, Mark Twain, Truman Capote, Charles Dickens, or Ray Bradbury is anyone's guess.
I've never heard the controversy spun as being solely and exclusively classist but rather that the plays evince a knowledge of things "a middle class kid born into a nobody family" would be less likely to've known. "the man who wrote Shakespeare's plays thought Padua had a harbor, Bohemia had a coastline, France had lions, and ancient Rome had clocks." Oh really? Actually, the plays do nothing of the sort. Sure, they tended to be about people in the upper class, but so did a lot of other stories written by normal people.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 29, 2017 21:57:23 GMT
I've never heard the controversy spun as being solely and exclusively classist but rather that the plays evince a knowledge of things "a middle class kid born into a nobody family" would be less likely to've known. "the man who wrote Shakespeare's plays thought Padua had a harbor, Bohemia had a coastline, France had lions, and ancient Rome had clocks." Oh really? Actually, the plays do nothing of the sort. Sure, they tended to be about people in the upper class, but so did a lot of other stories written by normal people. "So far as anybody actually knows and can prove, Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon never wrote a play in his life." Mark Twain
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 22:10:14 GMT
"the man who wrote Shakespeare's plays thought Padua had a harbor, Bohemia had a coastline, France had lions, and ancient Rome had clocks." Oh really? Actually, the plays do nothing of the sort. Sure, they tended to be about people in the upper class, but so did a lot of other stories written by normal people. "So far as anybody actually knows and can prove, Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon never wrote a play in his life." Mark Twain Yes, we can, because common sense dictates it. It's the simplest solution to The Authorship Question, because making any of the alternatives a remote possibility, you need several moving parts. The more moving parts a machine has, the more likely it is to fail. The more conspirators there are, the more likely the secret is to get out. Everything about his plays has the symptoms of being written by a guy just doing his job. He was a Populist. He specifically wrote things he knew would be popular with a wide audience, which included the middle and lowers classes. His plays had "Yo Momma!" jokes them, for crying out loud! And if you read them in chronological order, you actually see how the man improved his trade with each successive play (especially his tragedies). The Anti-Stratfordian argument also tends to ignore his duds, like Titus Andronicus. Or the fact Romeo and Juliet isn't really all that good of a tragedy. The first two acts of Romeo and Juliet play like a typical comedy, and then take a sudden dark turn and follow the standard tragedy formula of the time 'til it's end. The sudden shift in tone doesn't mesh well with the rest of the original play. Shakespeare didn't really nail the art of writing tragedy until he wrote Hamlet.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 29, 2017 22:12:32 GMT
"So far as anybody actually knows and can prove, Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon never wrote a play in his life." Mark Twain Yes, we can, because common sense dictates it. It's the simplest solution to The Authorship Question, because making any of the alternatives a remote possibility, you need several moving parts. The more moving parts a machine has, the more likely it is to fail. The more conspirators there are, the more likely the secret is to get out. Everything about his plays has the symptoms of being written by a guy just doing his job. He was a Populist. He specifically wrote things he knew would be popular with a wide audience, which included the middle and lowers classes. His plays had "Yo Momma!" jokes them, for crying out loud! And if you read them in chronological order, you actually see how the man improved his trade with each successive play (especially his tragedies). The Anti-Stratfordian argument also tends to ignore his duds, like Titus Andronicus. Or the fact Romeo and Juliet isn't really all that good of a tragedy. The first two acts of Romeo and Juliet play like a typical comedy, and then take a sudden dark turn and follow the standard tragedy formula of the time 'til it's end. The sudden shift in tone doesn't mesh well with the rest of the original play. Shakespeare didn't really nail the art of writing tragedy until he wrote Hamlet. I'll stick with the greatest American author to ever live. Occam's razor isn't always the answer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 22:13:53 GMT
Yes, we can, because common sense dictates it. It's the simplest solution to The Authorship Question, because making any of the alternatives a remote possibility, you need several moving parts. The more moving parts a machine has, the more likely it is to fail. The more conspirators there are, the more likely the secret is to get out. Everything about his plays has the symptoms of being written by a guy just doing his job. He was a Populist. He specifically wrote things he knew would be popular with a wide audience, which included the middle and lowers classes. His plays had "Yo Momma!" jokes them, for crying out loud! And if you read them in chronological order, you actually see how the man improved his trade with each successive play (especially his tragedies). The Anti-Stratfordian argument also tends to ignore his duds, like Titus Andronicus. Or the fact Romeo and Juliet isn't really all that good of a tragedy. The first two acts of Romeo and Juliet play like a typical comedy, and then take a sudden dark turn and follow the standard tragedy formula of the time 'til it's end. The sudden shift in tone doesn't mesh well with the rest of the original play. Shakespeare didn't really nail the art of writing tragedy until he wrote Hamlet. I'll stick with the greatest American author to ever live. Occam's razor isn't always the answer. ...You're an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 29, 2017 22:26:03 GMT
I'll stick with the greatest American author to ever live. Occam's razor isn't always the answer. ...You're an idiot. "I am ‘sort of’ haunted by the conviction that the divine William is the biggest and most successful fraud ever practiced on a patient world.” Henry James
|
|