Ten Reasons Why William Shakespeare is a Fraud by Roland Emmerich

[Valek419]

I just watched the movie today. It was brilliant. Makes sense to me, just another way to cover up "hidden TRUE history". Great job Roland!!

[carlisooflyx7]

this is great.

[joxadzoxy27]

i think shakespeare was a klischeelover how ever u turn it! what is d message of his art anyway? what r his characters special 4? if u ask me, nothing. ordinary. dostojewski explains it though

[MetalBru01]

@ted2u2 I'm not sure what you're replying to because I forgot what I wrote.

[blingerninja]

Wow, this guy falls about 50 yards short of making even one valid argument. This is actually frustrating to watch.

[kudrunma]

People, quit with bashing on his accent. I'd like to hear YOU talking in German. So immature, really.

[Stuartsaves]

6. We have no record of any student before 1700, almost 100 years after Shakespeare's death.

7. This is simply proof of nothing. What he did and didn't do in his declining years is irrelevant, and not evidence of fraud.

8. Maybe he read a book? Or he could have traveled to Italy and the records were simply lost to history.

9. It looks more like a pillow to me, but no, not interesting, and proof, again, of nothing.

10. Is there some requirement that his will contain such things?

[Azariaadele]

@Stuartsaves

6. Exactly. There are no complete records from the grammar school before 1700. However, as T W Baldwin showed in a painstaking analysis of 1525 pages in 1944, the plays are deeply indebted to standard grammar school texts (i.e. Ovid and Plautus).

7. Shakespeare derived his knowledge from books - in exactly the same way his colleague, Ben Jonson, did. Jonson's father was a bricklayer and he was one of the most learned men of his time.

[Azariaadele]

8. His knowledge of foreign countries is bookish. Contemporary Ben Jonson criticized Shakespeare for his mistakes in geography.

9. The Stratford monument is accompanied by an engraving in Latin from before 1623 which describes Shakespeare's accomplishments: "all that he hath writ / leaves living art but page to serve his wit".

10. Books, at the time, were considered "chattel" (personal effects). These were listed in a separate inventory. Inventories were less important and frequently lost.

[Stuartsaves]

@Azariaadele I Like your answers better. This was a book you were getting them from?

[Azariaadele]

@Stuartsaves Google "Shakespeare Bites Back". It is a PDF created by Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells. It gives historical fact. Emmerich's questions are non-questions. They simply misunderstand entirely the historical situation in which Shakespeare wrote. They also disregard Ben Jonson's (the most famous of Shakespeare's contemporaries) TWO first hand accounts of Shakespeare - one of which was published in the first folio the other in his Works. And a dozen others . . .

[Stuartsaves]

1. There can be other reasons why none of his writing or correspondence survived.

2. Literacy was around 30% or so in the country, so most people couldn't read.

3. Lots of people have written about things which don't reflect their lives. Tolkien could write about hobbits without being in middle earth.

4. How one signs ones name is proof of nothing, certainly not of their ability to write plays.

5. What Shakespeare wrote and why is his business, and certainly not proof that he was a fraud.

[Azariaadele]

@Stuartsaves Let me just bolster your points from Paul Edmondson's 'Shakespeare Bites Back'.

1. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

2. Shakespeare's daughters could read. Their signatures (which is the standard test by historians of literacy) survive in the archives of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust.

3. This misconstrues entirely the way that plays were written in Shakespeare's times. They were built from classical or contemporary sources not personal experience.

[Azariaadele]

@Azariaadele

One more note on point 3. Shakespeare does not heap contempt upon the poor. In fact, his poor / low characters frequently upstage the nobles. The proof is the Shakespeare's plays have been edited over hundreds of years - to cut out and minimize the comic scenes with "low characters". See the production history of 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' - where Bottom steals the show.

[Azariaadele]

@Stuartsaves

4. You are exactly right. How one signs one's name is proof of nothing.

5. Again, this misconstrues the way that plays were written during Shakespeare's time by ALL of his contemporaries. They didn't write from life . . . That said, Shakespeare refers to himself as "Will" in his sonnets twice. In Sonnet 131, he writes, "My name is Will". What else do anti-Shakespeareans want? A business card?

[CoolerKing37]

It's great fun to sit around and argue for hours over which 16th century luminary might have written Shakespeare's plays and why, detailing your arguments with extensive citations, semantic analysis and complex anagrams. Indeed, it's hard to imagine what could be funner! Sure, you might be missing out on great sex, food, sunshine and exercise, but you can rest easy knowing you've wasted years of your life trying to prove a premise that's probably wrong and really not all that important anyway.

[gaarasrulestheworld]

ALSO

People write about different things. Maybe Shakespeare wanted to keep his emotions more personal!

He is his own person, so stop comparing him to other people.

And it's called maps! And having friends in other countries! You don't have to travel to know details of life in another country.

You're movies suck anyway... so why should we believe what you say??

[gaarasrulestheworld]

Who is this guy?

Does he even know any of the history?

So what if there were no manuscripts found... maybe Shakespeare couldn't write

Maybe he dictated to someone else!

And does it matter if he's fake or not??

[ted2u2]

@gaarasrulestheworld I'd like to ask you the same question. Your response is nothing more than a straw man. Emmerich listed ten reasons. And yes, it does matter that the world may well have been living with a giant political lie about the most important writer in the history of the English language. So, disagree with Emmerich if you like (although you'll be more convincing if you started by understanding what he's saying). But don't try to BS us about how it "doesn't matter." It does.

[gaarasrulestheworld]

@ted2u2 Does it matter? Shakespeare is dead, so I don't think he cares very much. And it's like Homer and the Iliad, people say that it's not Homer who actually wrote it. But, that doesn't matter because it's still an important piece of literature. Just because we might not agree on who wrote the plays, doesn't mean they aren't still very important pieces of art. And I'm pretty sure it's not a big conspiracy trying to trick us, like Emmerich is making it out to be.

[andydj96]

can't take serious a guy talking like fucking bruno

[hbluna]

I can't take this douchebag seriously after godzilla AND 2012 *shivers*

[phprentice]

sweet.  can't wait to see it.

[austinfizzle13]

This is awesome. You're all fucking morons.

[CrunchTHEkangaroo]

@austinfizzle13 Agreed.

[ted2u2]

At least Emmerich knows what he's talking about.

[Ormusd]

@ted2u2 no he doesn't

[gorypleasure]

@ted2u2 He really really doesn't.

[Stuartsaves]

@ted2u2 It looks like he doesn't, actually.

[Joneeyy]

That's like the worst accent anybody could ever have oO

[elmagicomessi]

just give 1 reason why i'm watching this crap..... sucker

[danielcanas7]

good point

[VivaLaFesta]

Who knows what happened in the past... It was sooooo long ago....

[OriginalAndFunnyName]

That animation thing is the most annoying little segue ever conceived.