Was it Shakespeare?

[BloodStaindRose]

Shakespeare has been thought to plagerize but was it his own work?
What about Romeo and Juliet?

[IWilKikU]

Shakespeare was a real person. He was born in Stratford-upon-Avon. He was an actor and playwrite.

HOWEVER.......

Most people who have studied the subject in-depth, agree that there is no way that William Shakespeare single handedly wrote all those brilliant plays. Firstly, his vocabulary is just too big. He activly uses more words in just his plays and poems than anyone can master. Many passages of his plays resemble the writing styles of other playwrites of the time (Marlowe, Kyd, Webster, Johnson). What is generally accepted was this: Shakespeare had the most money of all of the people who worked under him because he owned and opperated The Globe Theatre. He had a commitee of writers working on the plays and he himself edited and compiled them. Because it was his theatre and he was the one with the dough, the plays were written "By William Shakespeare" rather than "By a whole bunch of era playwrites who are on the payrole of William Shakespeare". If you take a close look at the famous Shakespeare portrait you can notice that his face and bodyparts are just not quite right. He's thin, but he has a double chin. Thats because he's wearing a mask! If you look at the eyes closely you can see lines around them that dont belong. He has two left arms. The sleaves on his arms dont match, and...damn, one more thing that I cant remember. Its in this book I have at school. I'll be back there mid January and post more about it. Anyways, the point is that the artist compiled pieces of portraits of other playwrites, with Will's face (mask) on them. The artist knew what was going on and painted his portrait accordingly.

[BloodStaindRose]

i will go back and take a closer look at the photo of shakespeare!
but thanks for the information!
shakespeare's idea for Romeo and Juliet was not his own!
shakespeare's version was based upon a book called the historye of romeus and juliet
the story has been passed on for centuries!
i believe shakespeare is given too much credit for "his" works!

[fayefaye]

Nearly all his plays were based on pre-existing stories or history. He took old stories and wrote them as plays. Yeah, definately too much credit.

[Koa]

Yes, I've been wondering for ages how the hell he got the idea of setting his stuff in Italy, I still wonder if he's ever been here but I doubt it (it would be a tourist place now: Shakespeare was here!).
Until I found out that, for example, he took the story of Romeo and Juliet from a novel or something written by a local author. I don't know if the story was this author's original, but it's weird, I guess most people don't realise, as I didn't, that he took ideas somewhere else. Then I guess his fame comes from how well he could represent them on stage... (I'm not really into Shakespeare but he's believed to be the best playwriter, so...)

[fayefaye]

I don't think the characters are all that well represented at all. Shakespeare, Dickens, they're both well known, and they both suck, in my opinion. (But it's not like I'm going to read all their work and form an educated opinion when they bore me to death) Stay away from all things popular, koa.

[fayefaye]

ok, 'bore me to death' is an exaggeration, too harsh. But you know.... reading his plays ain't fun. maybe watching them.

[IWilKikU]

I enjoy both watching and reading them. But theyre the kind of books that you have to read more than once to really appreciate them.

I'm midway through Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities" and I think its really good. So faye, I guess what I'm saying is... bite my bag! :D :D :D

[fayefaye]

LOL. I've read A Tale of Two Cities. If you think it's good half way through, you'll probably like it the whole way through because it gets better towards the end. Really good ending. BUT I found it BORING!

[IWilKikU]

People always talk about Dickens' descriptions being so indepth and grand and all, but I like his dialogue.

[fayefaye]

Oh no... you're not going to get me started on Dickens, are you?

[crisaor]

Originally posted by fayefaye
LOL. I've read A Tale of Two Cities. If you think it's good half way through, you'll probably like it the whole way through because it gets better towards the end. Really good ending. BUT I found it BORING!
Me too.

[IWilKikU]

Originally posted by fayefaye
Oh no... you're not going to get me started on Dickens, are you?

OH YES I AM!!! Lay your Dickens on me love.





next I wanna talk about balzac ;)

[fayefaye]

Kik....! Don't! ok, well.... I find him verbose. His irrelevant descriptions drag on and on....

[IWilKikU]

Thats the only thing that I have EVER heard anyone say about him. Good or bad. Its either "his irrelevant descriptions drag on and on," or "his descriptions are so vivid and realistic, he paints a mental picture better than any fiction writer since!" While I think that both of these views are argueable, NO ONE EVER SAYS ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT HIM!!! People forget that his stories are great, his dialogue gripping, his characters well rounded, and all the other things that make somone a great writer. So what if his descriptive writing is a little more... thorough than your used too.

PS, we really should keep this thread going under a different forum since Dickens isnt really Shakespeare.

[fayefaye]

Kik, nobody here really cares what goes in what forum. :p

I know, but I guess it's the most prominent feature of Dickens writing to a lot of people... myself included. You're right though: his stories are great-why do you think they've survived for so long? It's just that sometimes that sort of verbosity is a little hard to get over. yeah, I know... once you get over that you can probably really enjoy his stories.... I don't really think it's all that worthwhile though. (duck and cover!)

[IWilKikU]

I think that being able to understand what the author is saying, bottom line, reading through whatever vernacular is key to reading, and liking some of these guys. All of my professors all speak liked well-read English guys, so listening to one of their lectures is like reading Dickens. They go off on the same type of irrelevent tangents and than jump unexpectedly back onto subject. Once you get used to hearing and interpreting that... Englishness... reading Dickens is no longer a chore. Same with Shakespeare you have to read that type of languege enough that you get used to translating it. Once you understand it without having to streach your head, you dont get destracted by the effort of reading it, and you can see how crazy-good Shakespeare's writing it.

[fayefaye]

If it IS written by Shakespeare. ;) Could be those guys working for him, remember? Anyway, I have the patience of a two year old....

[subterranean]

I'm not really in to Shakespeare? And the first time I visited this literature forum, I was kind of suprised that He has his onw forum here :). And I don't know whether R&J is not really his works.
But I want to ask some suggestion, from this list, which one is the best and I have to read first:
-RIchard III
-As you like it-
-Comedy of Errors
-Measure for Measure
-Merchant of Venice

(those are the ones which are available at my nearest bookstore)

[GoldenTears]

Can't help ya there, sorry. More of a Shakespeare tragedie person, meself. ^_^

[IWilKikU]

Richard III is one of Shakespeare's best characters. I would go with that one.

[Wiseguy666]

Shakespeare was a real person. He was born in Stratford-upon-Avon. He was an actor and playwrite.

HOWEVER.......

Most people who have studied the subject in-depth, agree that there is no way that William Shakespeare single handedly wrote all those brilliant plays. Firstly, his vocabulary is just too big. He activly uses more words in just his plays and poems than anyone can master. Many passages of his plays resemble the writing styles of other playwrites of the time (Marlowe, Kyd, Webster, Johnson). What is generally accepted was this: Shakespeare had the most money of all of the people who worked under him because he owned and opperated The Globe Theatre. He had a commitee of writers working on the plays and he himself edited and compiled them. Because it was his theatre and he was the one with the dough, the plays were written "By William Shakespeare" rather than "By a whole bunch of era playwrites who are on the payrole of William Shakespeare". If you take a close look at the famous Shakespeare portrait you can notice that his face and bodyparts are just not quite right. He's thin, but he has a double chin. Thats because he's wearing a mask! If you look at the eyes closely you can see lines around them that dont belong. He has two left arms. The sleaves on his arms dont match, and...damn, one more thing that I cant remember. Its in this book I have at school. I'll be back there mid January and post more about it. Anyways, the point is that the artist compiled pieces of portraits of other playwrites, with Will's face (mask) on them. The artist knew what was going on and painted his portrait accordingly.
he did not own the theater he own shares of it thats it...thats as a matter of fact is one of the few things that even proves he exsisted

[baddad]

There are NO portraits of William Shakespeare anywhere. The image commonly accepted as representing Ole' Willy, often represented in busts, paintings, etc, have no pedigree at all. Willy was a lowly entertainer, a writer. Few images of people from that time have EVER existed, except for a few of the royals who commissioned artists to do portraits of them.

As for Willy writing about places he has never been to....what's the big difficulty with that? I've never been to Antarctica and I could probably bang out a novella where the story takes place at the South pole! European societies were intermingled, you went where the wars happened, or jobs, or food or whatever. People travelled, people talked. It is not as if everybody in England was ignorant of a land called Italy, or France, or vice-a-versa.

And since when is a large vocabulary (too large is the acusation) evidence of malfeasance?

Willy rocks!!! Always has, always will, thats why we study him, not because he plagarized.

The problem with fame is that once you reach the top people want to drag you down. True today, true 500 years ago.

[Perdito]

What is generally accepted was this: Shakespeare had the most money of all of the people who worked under him because he owned and opperated The Globe Theatre. He had a commitee of writers working on the plays and he himself edited and compiled them. Because it was his theatre and he was the one with the dough, the plays were written "By William Shakespeare" rather than "By a whole bunch of era playwrites who are on the payrole of William Shakespeare".

Where on earth do you get the idea that this is "generally accepted"?

[Miss Darcy]

Okay, just quickly, I'm asleep *yawns to testify that*. I have heard of the "collaborative" story of the origin of Shakespeare's works (though don't believe in it); there may have been some influence from the actors, of course, but nothing too profound. That's of course only opinion, and not fact, as we know nothing for sure.

But about the poll question itself: "Was Shakespeare's idea of Romeo and Juliet his own?" I'd say yes. His idea of it was his own idea, his own interpretation, though it was based on a different version of the story, as with many of his plays. That's just what they did at that time. However, the plots of a large number of his works were his own and his own only. Though you must excuse me, being asleep, for not giving any examples. *Makes another very impressive yawn*

Well, hope that made some sense at all,

Miss Darcy