blah blah blah
and
Prove Marlowe wrote Tamburlaine.
Sorry, had no time earlier. Here's a little more of my thinking on this:
A few things about Tamburlaine.
One, it brings up a good point about people who can't admit authorship. If Marlowe wrote it (and I don't know why you are asking me to prove it, because I haven't asserted any special knowledge that he did) he had good reason to keep quiet about it. In fact I think the authorities suspected him of writing it but failed to pin it on him. Not sure about that.
Will of Avon clearly had nothing to hide in his writing sonnets, and his plays could barely be considered politically dangerous. He could have written and published his stuff as William Shaksper or Shaxper or however he felt like signing his name that day and I think that at the very least the sonnets would have garnered him near-instant fame. Other writers usually had the good sense to strategically admit or not admit their part depending on the possibility of getting pilloried or worse because of their admissions, didn't they? When they didn't they got thrown in the tower. I think Nashe, Marlowe, and Kidd all suffered the tower (Kidd was totally broken by it, no? And they wanted to burn Marlowe, that was the penalty for atheism!)... and those three, just a few of the people hurt. My point is why did Will of Avon so clearly fail to put his own claim on any of his works? Why did we have to wait until after he died for someone to name him? WHY?
The only way authorship of the entirety of the Shakespearean plays and sonnets would have needed to be concealed is if a noble wrote it.
Two, I think the methods used to assert Marlowe's authorship of Tamburlaine are literary methods, not historical, please correct me on this as I don't precisely recollect and I'm too lazy and too pressed for time to google now. So, Uzzy, if you favor such methods then you should also favor such methods in the case of Will of Avon, should you not? And if that is the case then he has very, very little to commend himself as the true author, because historical-biographical approaches to Will Shaksper/Shakespeare are inevitably awkward, even when done by Harvard scholars as in the source I referenced previously. Just to cite one sticky spot for Stratfordians, Will of Avon had no legal education. BIG PROBLEM. He never once mentioned his home town. Find another writer who has ever left his heritage completely out of everything he ever wrote. Wasn't Sandpoint based on Erik Mona's hometown? I wonder how Logue's upbringing factors into his stuff? Ick.
As an aside, you must know that Marlowe has been credited with writing a number of full S plays and numerous parts of S plays by the same literary methods that link him to Tamburlaine. My God, what if Marlowe didn't really die, but went into hiding because he was about to be thrown into prison - and kept writing - from Italy? ... just a thought that would be so f&#~ing cool!
On a separate note, Occam's Razor dictates that the simplest explanation is probably correct. And of two explanations, the one with the fewest assumptions is probably true. Here we have a problem, because both Stradfordians and Oxfordians must make assumptions and adding them up will just go on and on, back and forth forever. EXCEPT, Uzzy, I am not claiming that de Vere did write this stuff. So I'm not sitting on a mountain of assumptions. YOU ARE. I'm losing count of your stawmen, dude.
Two theories
(1) Will of Avon did it = many assumptions
(2) Will of Avon didn't = a couple of assumptions.
If you Uzzy don't have the decency to make the admission that other Stratfordians can make, namely that your belief is based on a good many inferences, suppositions, assumptions, stuff-you-made-up, and guesses, then don't even bother with me because that makes you either a liar or ignorant of the shakey foundations of your belief!
EDIT: Occam's razor is a really harsh mistress in literary studies, which are by their very nature imprecise, heavily influenced by impression, and totally prone to supposition. I find lit students are often hesitant to pull it out after a few times cutting themselves shaving. For myself, I don't usually pull it.
Why my choice not to accept these suppositions should bother you beats the heck out of me. Why don't you take it up with Twain, Freud, Dickens, Joyce, Henry James, Hardy, Holmes, Coleridge, Whitman, Gielgud, and Hawthorn who have all had the same doubts as me? They're dead? Oh. Didn't know that.
Look, what I'm saying isn't original, I didn't make it up, I didn't think of it myself. On the contrary I learned about it by taking the time to read up and now I think Will is a fraud, doing so only in nodding agreement with my betters.
It's like you believe in God, I do not, yet you are nailing me up for believing in Thor when I don't. What gives?
*sips his beer*
Want one?
Oh, and a little postscript for you:
To correct something you've said that I believe is poorly worded, de Vere did not as I understand it choose the name "shakes speare", it was used of him by others and that's how we know of it. A great many other misrepresentations have been made of this term by Oxfordians, I shall not perpetuate them.
To correct something you said that is a distortion, few actors could read, their lines were given to them orally. Whether or not Will of Avon was an exception to this historical fact is hard to say.
Let's mellow out, Uzzy. I will if you will.
4e or not 4e, that is the question.
Nah,it is not a question. The question, is 4e a comedy or a tragedy?
How dare you imply that our ranting is like the edition wars! Villain! Let us duel!
I'd like to say that if you guys read this book (be fair to me Mairkurion, I posted one for Pembroke and one for Will of Avon) you would not think me so mad, because it is sound in methodology, and analysis, more so than the books about Will of Avon and the Countess of Pembroke that I've posted previously, and just perhaps you might not think me so crazy. Nothing ironclad, though, just a hell of a lot of circumstantial, statistical, and literary parallels.
No, you're not an ass.
Wait a minute, what definition of ass are we going with again?I will definitely keep an eye out for that book, and am now adding it to my Shakespearean bib. Although, I can guarantee you getting to it will be after my dissertation is done.
Just wanted you to know that my very terse post about testimony re the past and probable, cumulative case arguments was not meant to reach as far as you understandably took me to mean it. I should have used a more obscure figure than Julius Caesar. Sorry if I came off as being unfair.
No problem. It's my nth time around with this debate so I go at it.
My next read on this subject is going to be this.
Marlowe = excitement.
Yeah, Marlowe's plays are on my shelf, demanding my attention. Back off, Kit, I'm busy!
Also I was kicking Will of Avon pretty hard, and tuning him in with my sarcasm filter on, so frankly I was asking for everything I got in here, Uzzy included.
It's all good to me.
Yeah, I'm sorry I just didn't give you a harder time. (Makes note for future.)
Kruelaid keeps speaking of the 'proof' that exists of other authors of the period having written their works. Well, sadly, he's misrepresenting the proof that does actually exist. Prove Marlowe wrote Tamburlaine...
I don't get it. I keep reading it.
Maybe it's because it doesn't make sense. Or I am illiterate, I sure fumbled the ball on Saern, after all.
Anyway, Uzzy, I get the impression you're telling me that just because we don't have evidence that Marlowe wrote one play we should believe that Shakespeare wrote the works without the customary evidence used to assert authorship. Hard to say.
Or maybe you're saying that because we can't be sure that Marlowe wrote Tamburlaine, and that because Marlowe is a writer, we can't be sure that all writers wrote what they said they wrote. Except for Shakespeare. There's lots of proof for him.
That's like saying penguins can't fly. Penguins are birds. Thus birds can't fly. Except ostriches, they can fly.
Am I wrong? Is that what you just did? Is that really a fallacy of accident with a hypocritical affix? Someone please tell me I'm illiterate and I just got all heated up and totally missed Uzzy's point cuz that could have happened I'm gettin' a little crazy here. People are looking at me funny.
And that ends today's broadcast of Rant Theater.
MOTHER!
Get thee to a ranttery!
My Italy has certainly fattened you, Edward! But then the Italian girls like a little meat on their men, don't they....
HAH! Knave! You address your betters as m'lord! Shall I teach thee manners by the edge of my blade?
I beg your pardon. I should have said "M'Lord you're getting fat!"
Pah! just because Kenneth Branagh thinks you wrote those plays don't get all m'lordly on me...
Besides, we're already dead!
We are?
Pats down doublet
How now? Are we in Purgatory for being thespians? God's Wounds!
Actually, you're Catholic and I'm an atheist. We mounted the wrong horses Edward.
Would it not be typical divine injustice if that imposter made it in?
And who does William Shatner's hairpiece? Oh wait, I know that one.
Thirdly, the Tempest was inspired by events that occurred in 1609, five years after DeVere's death in 1604. Given DeVere's reputation as a bit of a joker in literary circles at the time, I don't think he had the ability to see into the future. Let alone write the Tragedies.
Okay had to look this one up.
Seems to me that this one is going both ways. In the end, all we have are some congruities in narrative, although Strachey's account happened in a different ocean and didn't have sorcerers and mutants. Also, reasonable challenges remain as to whether Starchey's letter could have made it back by 1610-1611 - I think you forgot to mention that.
Added to this, the parallels are only literary and not that strong. No sound historical methodologies can be brought to bear on this evidence, so it is just literary supposition. Come on, Uzzy, Oxfordians have those in spades.
BTW, what does seeing into the future have to do with de Vere's being a joker? I am afraid your wit escapes me. And he couldn't have written the tragedies because he was a joker? Sure, ahhhh. *nods his head*
Whatever.
Ripping on Oxford does nothing for the Stratford case, history and this thread show that one may question Will of Avon with or without an viable alternate candidate.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
*CLICK*
Has anyone said he would probably play a bard, yet?
That's absurd! He plays 1st Ed, and he's a thief.
hehe.
j/k
|
Shakespeare a gamer! Definitely!
You could almost see him sitting at his desk scribbling away at Hamlet, rolling a d20 to determine the outcome!
A Bluff check in Romeo and Juliet!!!
A Diplomacy check in MacBeth!!!
An attack roll in Hamlet!!!
A performance in roll in As You Like It!!!
A Sense Motive roll in King Lear!!!
Yep, Shakespeare was a gamer. Thinking about how much influence Shakespeare has on everything, he'd be an honorary one at the worst!!!
What be a play, fair sirs, except a game?
And what are gamemasters, but gods of stage?
Fie! I can write better than thee, Slick Willie ...
Ah, verily Vere's wishes are in vain.
How loud the claimant's cries unheeded go!
If Shakespeare's plays were actually games... Can we identify where the protagonist has rolled a 1? Especially at a crucial moment?!
Macbeth. Sense Motive. When he meets the witches.
Lear: Knowledge (history) when he divides his kingdom.
Richard III: Appraise check on a horse.
Julius Caesar: Spot check.
Romeo and Juliet: Heal check to determine whether someone is dead. Diplomacy check with Tybalt.
I hope you don't speak like that on dates...
Twas speaking thus that won my dark lady!
4e or not 4e, that is the question.
Nah,it is not a question. The question, is 4e a comedy or a tragedy?
Does it get the girl, or does it end up dieing?
Tensor is tempting me...
4e or not 4e, that is the question.
Nah,it is not a question. The question, is 4e a comedy or a tragedy?
Does it get the girl, or does it end up dieing?
Both....
True story my girlfriend (now wife) and I were in the cinema watching Baz Luhrmanns version of Romeo and Juliet and the teenage girls (late teens 17-18) in front of us kept saying "oh my god I hope he doesn't die"... then they cried at the end... Which was great from one point of view that they connected with the emotion of the story.... but very sad as they were well old enough to have at least known the story.
4e ain't no Romeo.
Richard III: Appraise check on a horse.
Julius Caesar: Spot check.
If I had been drinking something when I read this, I would have laughed it right out on my keyboard. :)
|
Lear: Knowledge (history) when he divides his kingdom.
Richard III: Appraise check on a horse.
Julius Caesar: Spot check.
Romeo and Juliet: Heal check to determine whether someone is dead. Diplomacy check with Tybalt.
Not to mention pretty much the entire plot of A Comedy of Errors is one big failed Spot check.
|
|
Not to mention pretty much the entire plot of A Comedy of Errors is one big failed Spot check.Lear: Knowledge (history) when he divides his kingdom.
Richard III: Appraise check on a horse.
Julius Caesar: Spot check.
Romeo and Juliet: Heal check to determine whether someone is dead. Diplomacy check with Tybalt.
Othello: Rolls a 1 on every Sense Motive check in the play.
Othello: Rolls a 1 on every Sense Motive check in the play.
Hey, you gotta hand it to the Moor; it takes dedication to be that gullible that consistently!
If things had been worse, you would have done the part of the ghost perfectly! Glad it didn't come to that.
Shakespere games would work best in a 2d20 system.
Shakespeare is a character, Bacon was the player.