A point to ponder

[ksmith]

Why are some folks so determined to prove that Will Shakespeare didn't write the plays attributed to him, or had help, or fronted for a nobleman? Is it a class issue, a refusal to accept that a man from comparatively humble beginnings could write so well? Is it just something to do?

Listened to NPR on the way to the store this morning, and heard part of an interview with Mark Anderson, the author of "Shakespeare by Another Name: The Life of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, the Man Who Was Shakespeare." Anderson felt that the similarities between de Vere's life and relationships in frex Hamlet (the relationships between Polonius, Ophelia, and Hamlet) and King Lear (deVere's period of destitution) indicate that he played a major role in the writing of the plays. I missed the next interview with the guy who demolished that argument.

Is it because humans love a conspiracy theory? Because they feel some things are too great to have been accomplished by one man?

Comments

[naomikritzer]

My mother (a Theater professor, though not a Shakespearean specialist) thinks it's mostly classism. At least, that was her comment the time I asked her about it.

I think there's something about a love for conspiracy theories, too, and the fact that some of the conspiracy theories about other people of the time are pretty clearly true. A couple of years ago at the Minnesota Fringe Festival I saw a (truly awesome) show called Bards that had Shakespeare and Kit Marlowe in it. Kit is kind of the bard over the mantelpiece -- if he's standing around wisecracking in the first scene, he's got to be dead on the floor in the last scene. I was curious enough about the stuff presented in the play that I looked it up, and some of the historical facts about Kit Marlowe are stunningly weird in a "too good for non-fiction" sort of way. Like they all said he'd died in a bar brawl but he just happened, at the time, to be in the company of a bunch of known spies, and was rumored throughout his life to have been involved in espionage for Queen Elizabeth, and there are all these bits and pieces that support the theory that Marlowe really was a spy, even though that wasn't in the official story. The amount of cloak-and-dagger stuff that clearly really was going on with Kit makes people a lot more willing to speculate about whether similar stuff might have been going on with Shakespeare.

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

The pro-de Vere guy did say that there was an awful lot of skullduggery going on during that time. He believes Polonius was based on de Vere's one-time fil, William Cecil, who did spy on his own children.

[rarelylynne.livejournal.com]

Ok, you officially need to read Ink & Steel and Hell & Earth, to see a fictional account of Will & Kit's Excellent adventure, if you haven't already...

[e-moon60.livejournal.com]

Conspiracy theory--it holds a fascination for so many people. It's like the Richard II thing, the conspiracists who are sure it's a plot by Thomas More (I think it was) and poor innocent Richard had nothing to do with the death of the little princes.

So many people like to think they have the inside scoop, the secret knowledge. And maybe it is classist, since they keep wanting a noble to be the real author. Except that if it were the Earl of Oxford, someone would no doubt have the theory that he'd stolen it all from some poor unrespected (but professional) player, maybe that guy Will Shakespeare...

E.

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

Except that if it were the Earl of Oxford, someone would no doubt have the theory that he'd stolen it all from some poor unrespected (but professional) player, maybe that guy Will Shakespeare.

I have no doubt this would be the case.

[(Anonymous)]

I think some people are just nuts. Then you mix in some academic rivalry and the requirement to publish, and the crazy theories start coming out of the woodwork.

They found a portrait that they believe was painted when Wil was alive.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7932901.stm

A

[jessica-de-milo.livejournal.com]

Props to the anonymous who blamed it on rivalry and publication impetus. But I also think there are some who not only want greatness not to have come from either one man or humble beginnings, but also to appropriate that greatness for their own group. I have a very dear friend who is fairly extreme on the scale of feminists; she's all about the 'Dark Lady' theory, that Amelia Lanyer wrote all of Willy's stuff. And for all that this friend holds an MA in poetry, I never heard one bit of anti-stratfordian theory from her lips until she heard a semi-plausible theory that included a female author.

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

Anonymous is Adrianne. Maybe she could get an account--they're free.

::hint hint:: *g*

Yanno, Anonymous is Adrianne would make a good name for an emo band.

but also to appropriate that greatness for their own group.

I agree with this. I saw it to some degree during my brief stint as a grad student in Chemistry. Someone had a pet hypothesis, and every problem became a nail to be hit with their hammer.