Audience member Rhona @ 1:23:40 points out the tautological nature of this disappointing conversation among a clique of emenently bored theater professionals, mostly of academic persuasion, who, with the exception of Mahon, can bare bring themselves to quote from any of the author's works or cite any of his biographical facts. Rhonda correctly notes that a few aspects of the plays are used to define the man and that this specter then serves to explain other aspects of the work. Fie! Foh!
@cwhanna agreed. No other candidate makes any sense. Especially considering the overwhelming biographical information peppered throughout the plays. Too many coincidences to explain away and no coincidences surround the "glover's son". We're expected to believe what the Stratfordians say simply because they say it.
I'm astonished that an important 'biographical' activitiy of Shakespeare isn't mentioned here: reading. Reading the Greece and Roman classics was an important fountain for him. The work Ovid, maybe his oldtime favourite, explains a lot of his thinking: the transformation of identities. And Ovid wrote about love....
Poor Rosenbaum. His theses are wrongheaded, and he's argued down immediately and becomes more irrelevant as the discussion goes on. Lyric is obviously personal, and art is obviously produced by artists. Postmodern posturing looks foolish each time it's tried. Brustein and Wearing's conributions are wonderful. I really wish Mahon had said more - his small contribution was beautiful.
Audience member Rhona @ 1:23:40 points out the tautological nature of this disappointing conversation among a clique of emenently bored theater professionals, mostly of academic persuasion, who, with the exception of Mahon, can bare bring themselves to quote from any of the author's works or cite any of his biographical facts. Rhonda correctly notes that a few aspects of the plays are used to define the man and that this specter then serves to explain other aspects of the work. Fie! Foh!
AJourneymanWayfarer 5 months ago
So if it was all about IMMEDIACY and "writing on the lark", I suppose Shakespere is the boy to go with!
AAwildeone 5 months ago
@cwhanna agreed. No other candidate makes any sense. Especially considering the overwhelming biographical information peppered throughout the plays. Too many coincidences to explain away and no coincidences surround the "glover's son". We're expected to believe what the Stratfordians say simply because they say it.
MsTexasOne 1 year ago
DeVere's bible with "crib notes" that can be found in much of the Shakespeare canon is truly a smoking gun.
MsTexasOne 1 year ago
I'm astonished that an important 'biographical' activitiy of Shakespeare isn't mentioned here: reading. Reading the Greece and Roman classics was an important fountain for him. The work Ovid, maybe his oldtime favourite, explains a lot of his thinking: the transformation of identities. And Ovid wrote about love....
Contextcatcher 1 year ago
Wikileaks will release documents to prove who really wrote Shakespeare.
opusrideshoot 1 year ago
I know who wrote the plays, it will be revealed in my book 'The Hand of Shakespeare' to be released in 2011. I kid you not.
billdup 1 year ago
17th Earl of Oxford Edward Devere wrote the plays commonly attributed to shakespeare...
cwhanna 1 year ago
Poor Rosenbaum. His theses are wrongheaded, and he's argued down immediately and becomes more irrelevant as the discussion goes on. Lyric is obviously personal, and art is obviously produced by artists. Postmodern posturing looks foolish each time it's tried. Brustein and Wearing's conributions are wonderful. I really wish Mahon had said more - his small contribution was beautiful.
123cristofori 1 year ago
...and a Scot. Here I am.
shatner85 2 years ago