Where are you on the "real Shakespeare" debate?

[Fizz]

As a graduate student in English Literature I can tell you exactly where I stand on the subject. Whether Shakespeare wrote all of the plays that have been attributed to him does not matter to me.

The text speaks for itself. The author's name could be unknown. The only way that this could alter the way we view his works is that had Shakespeare as a name not been attributed to these plays, the works might not have been as canonized as they are right now.

Yet, the works themselves stand on their own, they're brilliant.

The author could be called: Poohcarrot and it still wouldn't matter. When you read a work, the text should stand on its own. Far too much emphasis is placed on the author and their 'intentions'. Unless the author is in front of you, it is very difficult to determine their intentions and as such the works have to speak for themselves and we (the reader) bring context to the text.

Cheers.

[poohcarrot]

Cheers!

[Ponder Stibbons]

*turns around at japanese border and marches back for a second slap*

[bikkit]

don't bother. His head will get too big and explode the way he's heading

[theoldlibrarian]

You should attach a poll to this. I strongly believe that Shakespeare did write all "his" works. The idea that someone else could of written all of them is absurd and the idea that they were all stolen is even worse considering the shared style found in all of his works.
Of course none of his plots were in entirely original but that is an invalid argument seen as no plot is entirely original.

[Ponder Stibbons]

True, he mostly dug up old greek and roman stuff then twisted it. Kind of like terry, if you think about it, but less true to today

[Jan Van Quirm]

True, he mostly dug up old greek and roman stuff then twisted it. Kind of like terry, if you think about it, but less true to today

That's because it was true to HIS today not ours

In terms of staging and production Shakespeare's work was performed in contemporary (so 16th Cent) costume and language too, with a nod towards prose forms of course. So the 'modern' habit of performing A Mid-Summer's Night Dream in 1920's Italian costume or Hamlet with David Tennant in a skeletal tee shirt is nothing 'new' at all!

[raisindot]

Of course none of his plots were in entirely original but that is an invalid argument seen as no plot is entirely original.

Back then, just about every play was based on an earlier source of some kind, whether historical, biblical or based a previous play. Audiences came to see works based on historical figures or stories they were familiar with, so a completely "original" story wouldn't have worked, commercially.

Aristophenes may have been the first playright to actually create plays with "original" stories (even though he used mythical and historical events as backdrops), but the comedians had a lot more latitude in this area.

J-I-B

[theoldlibrarian]

Of course none of his plots were in entirely original but that is an invalid argument seen as no plot is entirely original.

Back then, just about every play was based on an earlier source of some kind, whether historical, biblical or based a previous play. Audiences came to see works based on historical figures or stories they were familiar with, so a completely "original" story wouldn't have worked, commercially.

Aristophenes may have been the first playright to actually create plays with "original" stories (even though he used mythical and historical events as backdrops), but the comedians had a lot more latitude in this area.

J-I-B

But even more fundamentally than that, no story is entirely original and only a few are even remotely original. Think of any movie you've seen or book you've read recently and if you do enough research you'll find where they got the idea for the plot from.

[Ponder Stibbons]

True, he mostly dug up old greek and roman stuff then twisted it. Kind of like terry, if you think about it, but less true to today

That's because it was true to HIS today not ours

Thats what i meant