Disney strikes again!?

Disney strikes again!? Mar 29, 2017 23:17:33 GMT

Quote

Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 23:17:33 GMT

Mar 29, 2017 23:08:20 GMT coldenhaulfield said:

Mar 29, 2017 22:50:39 GMT @weirdraptor said:

Stating that the most logical explanation is also the most likely one is ridiculous? Actually, I've proven it several times. You're just too stupid to realize it.
Also, the idea that Shakespeare can't have written about nobility or royalty due to not being in the upper class himself is hogwash. The idea that someone had to live something to write about it is actually a pretty new concept and frankly not true.

Here's Ian McKellen, then:

Article Link: McKellen's thoughts

Straight from a Shakespearean actor who has been on stage for decades now.

Dude: I'm not even joking or trying to be mean when I say this: I respect McKellen's opinion (and that's all it is, though an extremely specific and in my view highly relevant one) but you've gotta admit that even he concedes the possibility of contributions from others while defending Shakespeare's authenticity. My honest, non-sarcastic, not-fucking-with-you-even-a-little-bit-for-just-this-one-post takeaway from that quote is that, although Sir Ian believes exactly as you do, he certainly admits there may have been others involved in the creative process and that, ultimately, the incredible quality and quantity of Shakespeare's ("Shakespeare's") contributions to humanity make the entire debate moot.

I'm fine with leaving it there, since it's essentially unprovable.

Um, I also said Shakespeare worked with other people to write his plays. I said that playwrights writing a new play for a specific theater had to iron out the kinks with the other people who worked there.

Fine. Then I suppose there's also reason to doubt Albert Einstein was the man behind the scientific theories attributed to Albert Einstein. After all, how could a man who did so horribly in school be the greatest scientific mind of the 20th century?

I'll leave it on this point. No one from the Elizabethan or Jacobean eras ever doubted that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. No Elizabethan ever suggested that Shakespeare's plays and poems were written by someone else, or that Shakespeare the player wasn't Shakespeare the author, or that Shakespeare the Globe-sharer wasn't Shakespeare of Stratford. No contemporary of Shakespeare's ever suggested the name used was a pseudonym. AND none of the major alternative candidates be they Francis Bacon, the Earl of Oxford, or Christopher Marlowe had any connection with Shakespeare's acting company or with his friends and fellow actors.

Antistratfordians have to rely on speculation about what they think the "real" author should have been like, because they can't produce one historical fact to bolster their refusal to accept who that author actually was. No matter how they try to ignore it or explain it away, the historical record (all of it) establishes William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon as the author of the works traditionally attributed to him.