nineweaving is better at this than I am
Because once again she's where I first saw the Stratfordian link of the day: Wouldn't It Be Cool if Shakespeare Wasn't Shakespeare?
Besides, no argument could ever possibly sway the Oxfordian crowd. They are the prophets of truthiness. “It couldn’t have been Shakespeare,” they say. “How could a semiliterate country boy have composed works of such power?” Their snobbery is the surest sign of their ignorance. Many of the greatest English writers emerged from the middle or lower classes. Dickens worked in a shoe-polish factory as a child. Keats was attacked for belonging to the “cockney school.” Snobbery mingles with paranoia, particularly about the supposedly nefarious intrigues of Shakespeare professors to keep the identity secret. Let me assure everybody that Shakespeare professors are absolutely incapable of operating a conspiracy of any size whatsoever. They can’t agree on who gets which parking spot. That’s what they spend most of their time intriguing about.
It doesn't even mention all the inaccuracies in the movie (for instance, it points out that Shakespeare did not invent the idea of the hunchbacked Richard III -- although he seems to suggest that Thomas More did and I don't think that's the case either; can lareinenoire or the_alchemist weigh in? -- but doesn't mention that the film uses Richard III for the Essex rebellion when it's supposed to be Richard II), but it's quite entertaining and, as the quote above illustrates, it's on the mark about the stupidity of antistratfordianism. Plus it's illustrated with a Tom Gauld cartoon. Yay!
Besides, no argument could ever possibly sway the Oxfordian crowd. They are the prophets of truthiness. “It couldn’t have been Shakespeare,” they say. “How could a semiliterate country boy have composed works of such power?” Their snobbery is the surest sign of their ignorance. Many of the greatest English writers emerged from the middle or lower classes. Dickens worked in a shoe-polish factory as a child. Keats was attacked for belonging to the “cockney school.” Snobbery mingles with paranoia, particularly about the supposedly nefarious intrigues of Shakespeare professors to keep the identity secret. Let me assure everybody that Shakespeare professors are absolutely incapable of operating a conspiracy of any size whatsoever. They can’t agree on who gets which parking spot. That’s what they spend most of their time intriguing about.
It doesn't even mention all the inaccuracies in the movie (for instance, it points out that Shakespeare did not invent the idea of the hunchbacked Richard III -- although he seems to suggest that Thomas More did and I don't think that's the case either; can lareinenoire or the_alchemist weigh in? -- but doesn't mention that the film uses Richard III for the Essex rebellion when it's supposed to be Richard II), but it's quite entertaining and, as the quote above illustrates, it's on the mark about the stupidity of antistratfordianism. Plus it's illustrated with a Tom Gauld cartoon. Yay!