Shakespeare fake or real

[StickMan]

So the debate on if Shakespeare wrote his plays is getting another kick from what I just read on Yahoo news. I've heard for awhile that he may have stole Romeo and Juliet, and it may have been based off a real world story. I know I've got a few English teachers, students, and lovers of classics of all kinds on this board so what do you think did he write them all him self, have help, or steal it all. I'm personally of the school of he wrote some, stole some and plagiarized. But then I like stuff that discredits historical figures, so I've got a basis that I fully admit.

So Shakespeare Real or Fake.




Yahoo story that sparked my interest. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070908/ap_on_re_eu/britain_shakespeare_debate)

[Pyro]

I'm not much of a Shakespeare fan, but I would like to point out many cultures have a Romeo and Juliet type story/myth. Just thought that might interest some.

[Rachel Lorelei]

Romeo and Juliet is drawn from other stories--something Italian, I believe, which was in turn inspired by the Tristan and Isolde myth.

Denying that Shakespeare wrote his plays is minor conspiracy-theorism, and little different from any other conspiracy theory. We've got a rather good record of his life. He wrote them, and people insisting he didn't... well, some folks think we never landed on the moon. Don't buy into it.

[Brickwall]

1. Romeo and Juliet has been done in every age. It dates back to the time of forbidden love, which is quite old.

2. Julius Caesar is loosely based on historical events (loosely). Not really stealing, there.

That's about it. Considering his physical and social aptitude (neither remarkable), I figure he had to be at least good enough to break into playwrighting before he could possibly steal, and if he was good enough for that, I also figure he was good enough to do the rest by himself.

[Vuzzmop]

There are always going to be supposed conspiracies, but this one doesn't seem likely. Like saying that Elvis is still alive. Why bother until you have fact?

[Serpentine]

I think that if you intend to accuse Shakespear of stealing, you have to accuse Tolkien of the same to about the same degree. I have yet to see any convincing evidence, aside from mere speculation and conspiracy-theorism, that Willy did anything more than gather inspiration from or rewrite other stories.

[PhoeKun]

Fact: Shakespeare drew inspiration from and occasionally rewrote preexisting stories.

Fact: this does not mean he stole any of the manuscripts for his plays.

[Em Blackleaf]

I think he wrote most of them and had help from some of them.

[heretic]

I always said ol' Shakespeare was a bit handy with plagiarism.

[Indurain]

Oh come on now...we all know that Shakespeare made a deal with an immortal anthropomorphic personification of dreams and story telling.

Willy just had to write to plays for the aforementioned immortal, and in return got all the fame and writing skill he desired.

So, yeah he wrote them himself...but he had some help.

[Glaivemaster]

Oh come on now...we all know that Shakespeare made a deal with an immortal anthropomorphic personification of dreams and story telling.

Willy just had to write to plays for the aforementioned immortal, and in return got all the fame and writing skill he desired.

So, yeah he wrote them himself...but he had some help.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking that :smalltongue:

I personally think he did it all himself, as far as any writer can. Which is to say, of course there was a bit of plagiarism or basis in real life. There always is. So yes, he did it all himself, with inspiration

I hate it every time someone says 'historical figure X was never really that good, he just got help and didn't do anything himself etc.' It's mainly people being jealous that somebody else was actually pretty good at something such as leading or creating a country. It's stupid

[Emperor Demonking]

Yeah he didn't steal them he got inspiration.

[LCR]

There was some kind of Romeo and Juliet story as early as Ovid's Metamorphosis, called Pyramus and Thisbe.
Trust me, I had to translate it in an exam.

[Rachel Lorelei]

There was some kind of Romeo and Juliet story as early as Ovid's Metamorphosis, called Pyramus and Thisbe.
Trust me, I had to translate it in an exam.

The play-within-a-play in A Midsummer Night's Dream features Pyramus and Thisbe.

[Jibar]

Oh come on now...we all know that Shakespeare made a deal with an immortal anthropomorphic personification of dreams and story telling.

Willy just had to write to plays for the aforementioned immortal, and in return got all the fame and writing skill he desired.

So, yeah he wrote them himself...but he had some help.

Or, ya know, it was a group of word witches from another planet trying to open a portal to the prison dimension where they are trapped by hiding the words in his plays.
:smallamused:

[CrazedGoblin]

im not realy a fan of Shakespeare, ive never really got into any depth about it.

What i do know for a fact is, its annoyingly hard to learn in some cases (for theatre parts from personal experiance) and that its brilliant, Iambic Pentameter (spelling:smalleek: ) is an art in itself

[LCR]

The play-within-a-play in A Midsummer Night's Dream features Pyramus and Thisbe.

Yes, it does.

[Catch]

Personally, I've heard quite a bit about the Shakespeare-Bacon (http://www.theatrehistory.com/british/shakespeare030.html) theory, yet I've yet to hear anything wholly convincing.

Really though, the man's works contributed immensely to the use of English in theater and that's commendable in and of itself. Whether Shakespeare borrowed ideas or not, I'd say he was talented enough to be considered great, regardless of the legitimacy of his works.

[Orzel]

Shakespeare is a myth English Teachers made up so that they have volumes of easy work to force students to write papers on and..

*is taken away by old ladies with large books*

[bosssmiley]

Personally, I've heard quite a bit about the Shakespeare-Bacon (http://www.theatrehistory.com/british/shakespeare030.html) theory, yet I've yet to hear anything wholly convincing.

Really though, the man's works contributed immensely to the use of English in theater and that's commendable in and of itself. Whether Shakespeare borrowed ideas or not, I'd say he was talented enough to be considered great, regardless of the legitimacy of his works.

"If Shakespeare did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." :smalltongue:

That said, I'd never gone with the idea that Shakespeare was just a pen name for Kit Marlowe, or Bacon, or whoever. Sure he nabbed ideas from wherever he found them, sure he recycled some tropes that were popular with his contemporaries, but give the guy credit for existing. Do you really think the single most influential and most quoted writer in the English language (the KJB doesn't count, that was a committee re-write of John Tyndale's earlier work) was nothing more than a literary phantasm? Apply Occam's Razor for great common sensical justice. :smallwink:

Shakespeare: a great playwright ruined by centuries of hype, idolisation and over-analysis.

[Rachel Lorelei]

Shakespeare: a great playwright ruined by centuries of hype, idolisation and over-analysis.

Funny, I didn't notice anything ruined when I last read his work, or saw it onstage (squee at the GLOBE squeeeee), or took a class on it.

[Serpentine]

I've never ever ever had a single class that ever even had the option of studying Shakespear. Which sucks, cuz I really would've liked to. My year 12 highschool teacher could have chosen for us to cover Othello, but nooOOooo, she had to cater to the Lowest Common Denominator! grumblegrumblemutterrant *dissolves into timeworn gripes over year 11 and 12 English class and that bloody useless teacher that ruined it forever*

[Sir_Norbert]

Good Lord, that's appalling. Our English class included a Shakespeare play every year from 8 to 12, and in this country there'd be something of an outcry if it hadn't.

All writers get inspiration from pre-existing plots and plot archetypes, anyway. Even today. We just don't notice it the same way because today we have the novel, which allows you to pick and mix twelve different subplots and tangle them all up in a precise way that no-one's ever done before :P

[Cyrano]

Shakespeare is alive and well and working on some much less ambitious projects. He dyed his red hair, which everyone knows is the mark of Gilgamesh, to hide his unfortunate habit for immortality. So if you think Shakespeare is real, fake, or a lemur, go down to your local gas station and tell him yourself.

[PlatinumJester]

I think he did exist but he probably did just nick ideas from other plays or stories. Plus he was racist :smallmad:.

[Tom_Violence]

Oh he's real alright! Bastard owes me ten quid!

[bosssmiley]

Funny, I didn't notice anything ruined when I last read his work, or saw it onstage (squee at the GLOBE squeeeee), or took a class on it.

I think you misunderstand my intent. The place to which he is elevated in the literary 'pantheon' (note inverted commas) sometimes runs the risk of obscuring his merits.

What play you see at the Globe btw? (*envy*)


Plus he was racist. :smallmad:

Obvious troll is obvious. :smallannoyed:

That particular canard (I presume you're coming from the old "Othello" and Shylock standpoints) doesn't stand up to any analysis beyond the most cursory. If there's one thing Shakespeare rarely - if ever - created, it was stereotyped strawman characters.

[PlatinumJester]

Doesn't mean he wasn't racist. Merchant of Venice is rascist to Jewish people and black people. Though it was written 500+ years ago when everyone was racist so I guess you can kinda forgive him.

[BlackStaticWolf]

Though it was written 500+ years ago when everyone was racist so I guess you can kinda forgive him.

People are fundamentally a product of their times. It's hardly fair to even bring it up, when, in context of some of his contempories, Shakespeare wasn't bad on that front at all.

[onasuma]

Shakespear is as real as the moon landing. Wait...

[Rare Pink Leech]

Conspiracy theories are fun, but does it really matter if Bacon, or Marlowe, or Queen Elizabeth (yes, I have read that she is a possible candidate for writing his works) wrote the plays and sonnets collectively attributed to Shakespeare? The fact is, they are some of the greatest writings ever created in the English language, and we have a nice, simple name to refer to them all. Shakespeare's become bigger than life, anyway, so who cares who actually wrote them?

[bosssmiley]

Shakespear is as real as the moon landing. Wait...

Wait. Wut? Are you saying Shakespeare landed on ye moone first, before Apollo 11? :smallconfused:

"Well me and Kit Marlowe got drunk and starting mucking arount with some of the alchemical stuff he had lying about. Next thing you know there's an explosion, we're blown out through a hole in the roof, rocket past some swan-towed bishop or other and BAM! There we are on the Moon. It was pretty cool until the Queen of the Selenites decided to try and cut our heads of..."

[Drascin]

Fact: Shakespeare drew inspiration from and occasionally rewrote preexisting stories.

So, Shakespeare was a fanfic writer? It makes so much sense. Also explains why so many of his plays seem to make so little sense at times.

:smalltongue:

Now seriously, I think this is a tad absurd. Of course Shakespeare wasn't completely original - noone is. This is hardly motive to fault him.

Also, as an aside, I have to say that as a non-native english speaker, I find him totally incomprehensible and fail to see what's so great about the guy, but that's another matter altogether :smallwink:

[Rare Pink Leech]

Also, as an aside, I have to say that as a non-native english speaker, I find him totally incomprehensible and fail to see what's so great about the guy, but that's another matter altogether :smallwink:

Don't worry, many native English speakers feel the exact same way.

[Cruxador]

Shakespeare is as real as the moon landing. Wait...

which one, Apollo 11 or Apollo 12? or 13? because it's getting more and more likely that eleven was staged just so we could be the first, but I for one have never seen any evidence against twelve.

[Calamity]

Also, as an aside, I have to say that as a non-native english speaker, I find him totally incomprehensible and fail to see what's so great about the guy, but that's another matter altogether :smallwink:

As a native English-speaker, I don't see what's so great about him either. Although I do understand his works.

[Brickwall]

So, Shakespeare was a fanfic writer? It makes so much sense. Also explains why so many of his plays seem to make so little sense at times.

...the funny part is, I bet you've never even read Irregular Webcomic.

[Drascin]

...the funny part is, I bet you've never even read Irregular Webcomic.

Sorry, never even heard of it. Why?

[Emperor Demonking]

Not great, not great. The tempest is hillarious.

[Trog]

Mah. He was real. Who cares if he was a made up persona or not. It still took someone of considerable skill to write those plays, figure out which were the best plots to rework from existing lesser stories/playwrights (the is nothing new under the sun as they say) and then come up with dazzling verse in iambic pentameter that conveyed as much information as possible in a succinct and insightful way. We need volumes of notes nowadays to understand lost cultural/ political meanings behind his words, true. And yes his work certainly has been overanalyzed. Doesn't change the fact that the plays exist and are monumental works of art.

Just because someone else carved a statue of David before Michaelangelo doesn't mean theirs was nearly as well done or that any credit should go to them.

And until someone unearths a confession note written by William Shakespeare saying someone else wrote them nothing is proven. Gosh... some other writer wanted to claim that they wrote Shakespeare? Gosh... some other literary fan wanted to claim their favorite writer really wrote Shakespeare's plays? Surprise, surprise. And whatever. :smallannoyed:

[Eldpollard]

There are always going to be supposed conspiracies, but this one doesn't seem likely. Like saying that Elvis is still alive. Why bother until you have fact?

It's so obvious. Shakespeare is Elvis, and they're both alive.

[Cyrano]

It's so obvious. Shakespeare is Elvis, and they're both alive.

Common misconception. Elvis is fighting mummies in Sri Lanka with with Kennedy, whereas Shakespeare is currently enjoying a vacation on Alpha Centaury with the Rockefellers.

[bosssmiley]

Common misconception. Elvis is fighting mummies in Sri Lanka with with Kennedy, whereas Shakespeare is currently enjoying a vacation on Alpha Centaury with the Rockefellers.

Meanwhile, back with Mother Teresa and Lord Lucan... :smallbiggrin:

[StickMan]

Fact: Shakespeare drew inspiration from and occasionally rewrote preexisting stories.

Fact: this does not mean he stole any of the manuscripts for his plays.

Now I wonder if that logic will work on my next college paper.:smallcool:

[Serpentine]

Don't worry, many native English speakers feel the exact same way.
Pffft. He had nothin' on Chaucer and the other late medieval/early modern poets and writers.
All ye who complaineth about the quality of yon Shakespearian workes, how many of thee hath seen them as they wert originally intended, that be to sayeth, viewed performed upon a stage? I mean, it's not as though you'd read Rocky Horror Picture Show or Phantom of the Opera and expect it to be as good as the performance.

Stickman, what's wrong with that logic? If you're saying they're mutually exclusive, well, Tolkein "drew inspiration from and occasionally rewrote preexisting stories", but I bet you wouldn't say "he stole... the manuscripts".

[Siwenna]

Shakespeare did "borrow" from a good many works, enough so that now it would be considered plaigerism. Romeo and Juliet, for instance, is basically the play form of the poem "Romeus and Juliet". I'm studying The Tempest right now in Brit lit and apparently that is one of his few really original works.

[Mr Croup]

Shakespeare, as with many other playwrights down the ages, based many of his plays on existing stories and plays. A great number of Elizabethan comedies were reworked Commedia dell'Arte stories, which in turn had their roots in older traditions, like Plautean farces. Shakespeare was no different. It's a common thing, and doesn't (or at least shouldn't in my mind) lessen the significance of his works.

There is so little extant detailed evidence of Shakespeare's life that it is very easy to question whether or not he wrote his plays, stole them from other writers, or was in fact just a nom de plume of another individual, or of a group of individuals. Personally, I don't put much stock in those theories, as none of the research I've read has seemed overly compelling. Yes, it certainly could be possible, but as our esteemed egg-shaped colleague has stated, it's a stretch, and the notion that he was simply a gifted writer that did in fact write his own plays, is a far simpler and more plausible explanation.

For what it's worth, I love the Bard. I lament that so many people are exposed to his works in a manner that drives them away. As has been said already, he wrote plays, and plays are (by and large) meant to be performed, not simply read. Certainly there are benefits of studying the text, but I feel that you should see every play that you read performed, and quite possibly that this is more important with Shakespeare and his contemporaries than of most modern playwrights.

Right, enough of that, or I'll really find myself on a rant about the theatre, and the methods and significance of theatre education.

[GimliFett]

Or, ya know, it was a group of word witches from another planet trying to open a portal to the prison dimension where they are trapped by hiding the words in his plays.
:smallamused:

Bad, bad, bad word witches. And their brooms. Poor Will.
Just me or did the actor playing Will remind of Ewan McGregor?