Did Shakespeare write the plays?

I suppose the premise of my argument boils down this: To write about the world, you have to know the world. It's true that writers are like sponges and pick up a fact here, a truth there, and if need be immerse themselves in exhaustive research to lend their art a verisimililtude. I would argue, however, that all of that is mere decor and ornamention, that the essence of any work of art is the artist's impressions, memories, and/or experiences which are shaped by the life he lives. To know ABOUT horsemanship, falconry, and jousting is hardly the same thing as actively pursuing them. It's arguable that Ben Jonson wrote verse as affecting and beautiful as any that Shakespeare wrote but no one would even remotely suggest that Jonson stands toe-to-toe with Shakespeare artistically. In other words, literary art is much more than turning out beautifully polished and trimmed sentences with bits of facts gleaned, stolen, and/or scavenged stuck in to give it the stamp of authority, which with Jonson backfired in writing about hunting deer, which he lifted out of a manual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by My2cents

I suppose the premise of my argument boils down this: To write about the world, you have to know the world...

---

So let me see if I understand you here - you are saying that in order to write about anything, a writer needs personal experience of that subject? Perhaps therefore I should be wary of the next invitation to tea from my friend who writes rather gruesome murder mystery stories?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kasie

So let me see if I understand you here - you are saying that in order to write about anything, a writer needs personal experience of that subject? Perhaps therefore I should be wary of the next invitation to tea from my friend who writes rather gruesome murder mystery stories?

---

Don't be silly. You know as well as I (or at least I think you do) that Shakespeare's draw to discerning readers isn't about the lavish settings, the plot twists and turns, and the exaggerated story lines.

~

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing such comments will be removed without further notice.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by My2cents

To know ABOUT horsemanship, falconry, and jousting is hardly the same thing as actively pursuing them.

---

First off those that pursue falconry or jousting as an example might not be able to write about it in a captivating literary way, it is like many professors are not good teachers because they know too much about the subject to explain it.

There are immense amounts of authors that have never experienced what they wrote about.
People never coming nearer to a battlefield than reading about it have written believable books on soldiers at war.
It is not needed to experience something to write about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by My2cents

Don't be silly. You know as well as I (or at least I think you do) that Shakespeare's draw to discerning readers isn't about the lavish settings, the plot twists and turns, and the exaggerated story lines.

---

I disagree. If Shakespeare's plays had dull unimaginative settings, a straightforward plot, and realistic storylines, however nice the verse or prose, they'd become obscure. Shakespeare is successful because he is both populist and artistic, and a discerning reader would understand that instead of trying to fashion him into an elitest wordsmith.

This....


for though the camomile, the more it is trodden on, the faster it grows,


...would have been common knowledge in Shakespeare's time. It's the reason camomile lawns were so popular, and remain pretty frequent in old houses in southern England. I - for instance - a grammar school boy of modest urban background knew that about camomile before I encountered it in Shakespeare (at grammar school).

And anyone who's lived in the countryside knows what a cowslip looks like. You don't need to be a botanist.

Really, I'd say that anyone who says that all this knowledge is evidence that Shakespeare didn't write the plays knows very little about how writers work.

As a matter of interest, which part of this is making the point for you?

Boyet: Full merrily/ Hath this brave manage, this career, been run.
Berowne: Lo! he is tilting straight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KCV16

First off those that pursue falconry or jousting as an example might not be able to write about it in a captivating literary way, it is like many professors are not good teachers because they know too much about the subject to explain it.

There are immense amounts of authors that have never experienced what they wrote about.
People never coming nearer to a battlefield than reading about it have written believable books on soldiers at war.
It is not needed to experience something to write about it.

---

It isn't that Shakespeare wrote about falconry, horsemanship, botany, etc per se, it's that he demonstrated his knowledge of those subjects and more (the list is very extensive) to be second nature (not something idly picked up) in the way he incorporated his knowledge of them in his metaphors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

This....


for though the camomile, the more it is trodden on, the faster it grows,


...would have been common knowledge in Shakespeare's time. It's the reason camomile lawns were so popular, and remain pretty frequent in old houses in southern England. I - for instance - a grammar school boy of modest urban background knew that about camomile before I encountered it in Shakespeare (at grammar school).

And anyone who's lived in the countryside knows what a cowslip looks like. You don't need to be a botanist.

Really, I'd say that anyone who says that all this knowledge is evidence that Shakespeare didn't write the plays knows very little about how writers work.

As a matter of interest, which part of this is making the point for you?

Boyet: Full merrily/ Hath this brave manage, this career, been run.
Berowne: Lo! he is tilting straight.

---

As I pointed out, the stuff on botany is what I personally found enlightening.

The Boyet, Berowne exchange is a discussion of wooing a lover in equestrian terms, which I would never have known if it wasn't pointed out to me.

So how do writers work? It was my impression that everything a fiction writer needs to know is in his head and that whatever he wants to embellish it with can be supplemented with research, meaning if it's not already in his head it can't be made piecemeal from scratch with research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

I disagree. If Shakespeare's plays had dull unimaginative settings, a straightforward plot, and realistic storylines, however nice the verse or prose, they'd become obscure. Shakespeare is successful because he is both populist and artistic, and a discerning reader would understand that instead of trying to fashion him into an elitest wordsmith.

---

No one's making him out to be an elitist wordsmith. It's an inference drawn from evidence, nothing more nothing less.

Of course, the exciting plots and exotic settings add to the plays, but appreciation of the plays go far beyond them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by My2cents

Don't be silly. You know as well as I (or at least I think you do) that Shakespeare's draw to discerning readers isn't about the lavish settings, the plot twists and turns, and the exaggerated story lines.

---

You don't think that the above implies what I said?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

You don't think that the above implies what I said?

---

What?

This subject goes with the post mmmjess made yesterday.

No such person called Shakespeare had anything to do with the "works" unless a body was robbed of his identity. It is true to say that there are some rough documents which seem to suggest a real person. There is the little matter of the brides names, and two farmers carrying a huge sum of cash (£40) to pay off the church authorities (the head of whom gets a plum job in Cambridge the year following the so-called wedding). There is also a small matter of no name ona certain tomb, and directly overhead, a so-called monument which gets the name wrong (it's spelled Shakspeare), no excuse really, when the name is spelled with the e in the 'First Folio'.

There are too many points which tempt curiosity. I think there were altogether thirty two persons involved with the whole thing. Queen Bess was at the top, supported by John Dee, Bacon, and even Essex (who was never executed). King James was never involved.

The plays were evolved by each person taking on the parts of the actors , and posting letters to each other in a kind of long-distance game, and the resultant papers were knocked into shape by Ben Jonson and Kit marlowe, to name just a few. The whole thing took many years to reach it's final state. That's the way I see it anyway.

The thing is far too complex for the average mind to fully grasp, simply because there are many very different strands interwoven to make the whole thing work.

Even if one were to provide concrete evidence, it would be almost impossible to convince most parties, simply because of the intellectual prowess demanded of the disbeliever. Plus the fact that in those times they had a completely different mindset.

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike thomas

This subject goes with the post mmmjess made yesterday.

No such person called Shakespeare had anything to do with the "works" unless a body was robbed of his identity. It is true to say that there are some rough documents which seem to suggest a real person. There is the little matter of the brides names, and two farmers carrying a huge sum of cash (£40) to pay off the church authorities (the head of whom gets a plum job in Cambridge the year following the so-called wedding). There is also a small matter of no name ona certain tomb, and directly overhead, a so-called monument which gets the name wrong (it's spelled Shakspeare), no excuse really, when the name is spelled with the e in the 'First Folio'.

There are too many points which tempt curiosity. I think there were altogether thirty two persons involved with the whole thing. Queen Bess was at the top, supported by John Dee, Bacon, and even Essex (who was never executed). King James was never involved.

The plays were evolved by each person taking on the parts of the actors , and posting letters to each other in a kind of long-distance game, and the resultant papers were knocked into shape by Ben Jonson and Kit marlowe, to name just a few. The whole thing took many years to reach it's final state. That's the way I see it anyway.

The thing is far too complex for the average mind to fully grasp, simply because there are many very different strands interwoven to make the whole thing work.

Even if one were to provide concrete evidence, it would be almost impossible to convince most parties, simply because of the intellectual prowess demanded of the disbeliever. Plus the fact that in those times they had a completely different mindset.

Regards

---

Wikipedia extract:

Devereux's conviction for treason meant that the earldom of Essex was forfeit, and his son did not inherit the title. However, after the Queen's death, King James I reinstated the earldom in favour of the disinherited son, Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex.

So if Essex wasn't executed, why did King James reinstate the earldom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

Wikipedia extract:

Devereux's conviction for treason meant that the earldom of Essex was forfeit, and his son did not inherit the title. However, after the Queen's death, King James I reinstated the earldom in favour of the disinherited son, Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex.

So if Essex wasn't executed, why did King James reinstate the earldom?

---

Because Essex wasn't dead - but Bess was.