Thanks to reader James Weston for sending this one my way. We’ve covered disaster specialist Roland Emmerich’s plans to tackle the Oxfordian argument in the upcoming movie, “Anonymous”. The LA Times doesn’t seem to like the idea.
Funny, only after reading the article and moving to post this did I realize that the opinion piece is written by James Shapiro, currently making his own mark in the Shakespeare books with his argument that they are most certainly collaborative and most certainly not autobiographical:
In cashing in on this fantasy, Emmerich’s film may lead moviegoers to believe that only a nobleman had the necessary gifts to write the works of Shakespeare. Sure, it’s only a movie, but try explaining that to schoolteachers who will soon be confronted by students arguing that the received histories of Elizabethan England and its greatest poet are lies — and that their teachers, in suppressing the truth, are party to this conspiracy.
Emmerich’s film will also do a deeper disservice to Shakespeare’s legacy. Encouraging audiences to believe that the plays are little more than the recycled story of a disgruntled aristocrat’s life and times devalues the very thing that makes Shakespeare so remarkable: his imagination.
Oooohhhh, juicy… "incest and bastards".
Who wrote this crap, Nicholas Sparks?
Oh, forgot, he doesn't write outlandish "Romance". 🙂
Shapiro brings up an important point.
From his LA Times piece:
"A quarter-century ago all this was unimaginable." "What then accounts for the reversal? The FACTS HAVEN'T CHANGED; [my emphasis] what has is our comfort level with conspiracy theory as well as our eagerness to seek authors' lives in their works."
Welcome to the "'information' age". Where a guy named "Looney" can write an undocumented soap opera in 1920 about "incest and bastards" and someone can market it all day long as "the truth"–for years on end– if they so choose.
The truth is out there and is now coming to public consciousness. It is too bad that Mr. Shapiro and his supporters do not seem to be able to handle it. Alas, the old paradigms die hard.
I wish it would decimate them. Unfortunately as Howard reminds us the partial truth is out there. Though i don't give a paranickel for his case.
Oxford did indeed write poetry and comedies though there is no way he wrote Shakespeare's histories tragedies and comedies or poetries.
Keep fighting the Orksfordians people!
Stratfrodians defend your burrows the dark lord will appear in your cinemas soon enough.
The poor, ignorant of early modern pratices, masses will swallow the hype hook, line, and sinker i'm afraid.
Get ready for your nieces and nephews telling you it wasn't Shakespeare. It was really dear old incestuous Uncle Eddie!
My preciousssss! btw i don't follow Shapiro, I make up my own mind.
blog.iloveshakespeare.com has the latest rebuttal to the Orks.
yours in the name of Will,
WS
Just like the lemmings who would be kings. Quote one excerpt from a guy who writes stuff, and immediately you become a "follower".
"The truth" is out there… and I KNOW IT!!! Shakespeare's plays were REALLY written by…
…JAMES SHAPIRO!!!!
This neo-CONN notion that as long as you keep repeating "it" over and over it will become "truth" unfortunately has some weight I'll warrant. But the oligarchs can re-write all the dictionaries they please (Newt Gingrich) as they try to "re-establish the 'natural' order of things". There are still, however, some Minds that can't be bought with mere flashy lights and hack re-writes. Oooh Look-I rhymed–*I* must have written the plays.