Did Shakespeare write the plays?

[Emil Miller]

Because Essex wasn't dead - but Bess was.

Obviously, but where was Essex during the time of his supposed demise and how could King James restore an earldom that was still in place?

[kelby_lake]

What?

Your comment implies that Shakespeare's worth is in his language and trifling things like a plot or story are secondary, and that readers who disagree aren't discerning readers like yourself. Shakespeare fitted his language to the story. His language is admired because it is dramatic, powerful, and suits the character, not because he can turn out some pretty phrases. Shakespeare certainly had a way with words but he used it to enhance his plays, as opposed to it being the only interesting thing about the plays.

[My2cents]

Your comment implies that Shakespeare's worth is in his language and trifling things like a plot or story are secondary, and that readers who disagree aren't discerning readers like yourself. Shakespeare fitted his language to the story. His language is admired because it is dramatic, powerful, and suits the character, not because he can turn out some pretty phrases. Shakespeare certainly had a way with words but he used it to enhance his plays, as opposed to it being the only interesting thing about the plays.

The exciting stories and exotic locales are like the initial hook of the plays. You want the largest audience possible, so you have something to appeal to everyone. Nothing wrong with that. But the plays are what they are because of the incredibly complex thoughts and emotions that Shakespeare has his characters convey. And there's a great deal of those thoughts and emotions which require careful study. And none but the most discerning of readers will either have the intellectual background to perceive those complex thoughts and emotions without any aid or will have the curiosity and the motivation to delve and find out for himself just what exactly the poet meant by this and that.

[wessexgirl]

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

Are you for real?

Where's your evidence? As if a conspiracy of such magnitude could possibly succeed! I think Queen Elizabeth probably had more things to be worrying about than being part of a massive cover up for a playwright, like running the country. And where do you get the idea that Essex was never executed? I think someone is having a joke at our expense here, winding up the Stratfordians like myself to watch them spin frantically out of control in defence of the great man. Nice job Mike, (it's not April is it?)

[mike thomas]

Apologies all round.

It was not the intention to cause offence, I know how deeply feelings are re the subject of WS. Rather akin to devout religion. But as some poet once said: "blind affection does not advance the truth".

Keep the staus quo - truth can sometimes hurt.

[MarkBastable]

truth can sometimes hurt.

And nonsense can sometimes irritate.

[Emil Miller]

Apologies all round.

It was not the intention to cause offence, I know how deeply feelings are re the subject of WS. Rather akin to devout religion. But as some poet once said: "blind affection does not advance the truth".

Keep the staus quo - truth can sometimes hurt.

Thanks for diplomatically omitting the rest:

Or blinde Affection, which doth ne're advance
The truth, but gropes, and urgeth all by chance ;