Was William Shakespeare talented?

Let's not forget, however, that at first Shakespeare was writing for others as part of a company. Then, he was writing for patronage and not getting thrown in London Tower (hence, the histories). Of course, he was always writing to put "bums in seats" as the saying goes that's why the plays have something for everyone. It was only at the end that he could write for himself - so to speak.

I absolutely love King Lear, Othello, Hamlet and Merchant. Not a fan of the comedies.

I agree with you on the comedies, 'The Taming of the Shrew' and 'As You Like It' have some amusing lines but overall trying to read the plays without them being performed by talented actors like, A Midsummer Night's Dream are fairly tedious at best. Nothing like the fun of reading The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer (make sure that you find the original unabridged versions, was introduced to the abridged version at first and just scratched my head for the most part).

We could argue the identity of Shakespeare, but in the end nothing can be proved conclusively for sure except that 'Shakespeare' wrote Shakespeare. Fairly odd that Shakespeare's parents were probably illiterate, and his daughters were
illiterate even though he was fairly wealthy, you'd think all of that heavyweight intellectualism would desire educated children to talk to? and also not a single manuscript exists in Shakespeare's own hand (preserved in his personal library?) and those that do show a style of handwriting that is fairly crude.

Maybe there is a bit of Chaucer in Shakespeare as well,

The Taming of the Shrew

“Petruchio: Come, come, you wasp; i' faith, you are too angry.
Katherine: If I be waspish, best beware my sting.
Petruchio: My remedy is then, to pluck it out.
Katherine: Ay, if the fool could find where it lies.
Petruchio: Who knows not where a wasp does wear his sting? In his tail.
Katherine: In his tongue.
Petruchio: Whose tongue?
Katherine: Yours, if you talk of tails: and so farewell.
Petruchio: What, with my tongue in your tail? Nay, come again, Good Kate; I am a gentleman.”

As You Like It

“Love is merely a madness; and, I tell you, deserves as well a dark house and a whip as madmen do; and the reason why they are not so punish'd and cured is that the lunacy is so ordinary that the whippers are in love too.”

And this our life, exempt from public haunt, finds tongues in trees, books in the running brooks, sermons in stones, and good in everything. I would not change it.”

I have the 'Complete Signet Classic Shakespeare' Sylvan Barnet and when you read through it you can assume that most of the works are perhaps by one person then you hit The Tempest and ?? who is this guy? surely not the same as Hamlet, the style is so far removed and the literary intent so far different, assuming that he had not eaten rye bread contaminated by LSD.   there is little explanation except the authorities who just say it is so.


I don't find it remarkable that Shakespeare's father was illiterate. Like all parents, he educated his son because he wanted a better life for him than the one that he had.  As to the girls, they weren't educated anyway. Girls were raised to be married off, have babies and probably die in childbirth. Why waste money? Shakespeare probably disappointed his father by not going into the family trade, or something better. His job as an actor (first) and playwright (second) was certainly precarious at best and borderline scandalous.


As to the marriage, he would have married her anyway since she was pregnant. Did he love her? Unclear, of course. She did have a hefty dowry but was she an abandoned wife? Depends how we think about whether or not he loved her. Did he leave her because he couldn't stand her? Or because he went off to find better opportunities in the big city and to provide for his family?


And as to the works, of course his writing style would change as he grew more confident - not only as an author but also with the confidence of money and fame which would have allowed him to be more ambitious. The crude handwriting means nothing since everyone writing with a quill looks like it's barely legible handwriting. Only civil servants had good handwriting because they had the time to draw up documents.

As I said, there is not one scrap of documentation to back up that statement. Not a hint. Not a breath in the historical record. Author Bill Bryson once said it very well, "It needs to be said that nearly all the anti-Shakespearean sentiment - actually all of it, every bit - involves manipulative scholarship or sweeping misstatements of fact."

The quote is from the final chapter of Byson's "Shakespeare: The World as Stage." Also check out "Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?" by James Shapiro.

Why would there be a historical record of debate over one of a dozen active playwrights during his own lifetime and after Shakespeare's death his plays were no longer being performed in theaters. Why would they preserve detailed documentation? surely debate would arise only after 100 or 200 years of active scholarship.

Is Shakespeare talented? Does a wild bear defecate in the woods?

As to authorship, although we don’t know much about him, his private and inner life, we have more facts about his life than just about anybody else born into his social class at that time. Maybe Ben Jonson is the next most known writer but even with him there are huge gaps, mainly in his early life.

As to documentation, Shakespeare’s name is all over the original publications of his works, the Quartos. After his death, two of his close friends from the theater company he owned a good share of put together all of his plays in a collected volume, the First Folio. His name is all over official records of the performances and registrations of his plays. People from the Stratford area knew that their native son in London was a successful theater man. As mmexis (above) has already written, he was not just a writer but a business man who wrote successful plays to earn a living. The documentation is mountainous, but it is more to the point that there exists absolutely zero documentation that anyone else was associated with the writing. (Note: modern scholarship is starting to acknowledge that Will collaborated with fellow writers more than has been formally thought, but that is not what I am talking about.) More than 200 years passed after Shakespeare’s death before anyone began to dream up these complicated conspiracy theories about authorship that have left no trace in the historical record.

There really no controversy. No question. William Shakespeare from Stratford-Upon-Avon is the author of the plays attributed to him. It brooks no discussion.

During 2016, the 400th Anniversary year of his death, I saw at least one film or video or live production of every play in the First Folio, plus Pericles and The Two Noble Kinsman. What an education that was! What a joy! You should try it sometime.