A huge bombard of sack

[nineweaving]

sovay has asked for a roundup of all the scattered Anonymous reviews, like daggletailed sheep to the dip.

Here they are, a fanfaronade for Oxenford:

"We all, at one point or another, indulge fantasies that make the world
seem more dangerous, more glamorous and, simultaneously, much more
simple than it actually is. But then most of us grow up. Or put down

Comments

[kalimac]

That touches on a good point. Sure, it's hard to believe that a glover's son wrote those plays. They're so magnificent that it's hard to believe that anybody wrote them. The only proof we have that they were written at all is ... there they are, so somebody did. (C.S. Lewis pointed out that if Hamlet vanished and all we had were the criticism of it, it'd be impossible to figure out from the varying and contradictory criticisms what the play could possibly be like.) Whoever wrote Shakespeare broke all the normal rules of human capacity, so any speculations about what he had to have known or done are useless.

[nineweaving]

Truly said.

As I wrote elsewhere, anti-Stratfordians think Shakespeare was made. They have a particular loathing for the idea that he happened, sprang up and flourished in the ground of the theatre.

Nine

[ron_drummond]

Oh, splendidly said, thank you! You captured my own thoughts, and others I hadn't, eloquently, so much so that I may end up having to quote you in print.

[intelligentrix]

I love the final bit of today's review in the New York Times:

“Anonymous” is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). Swordplay, bodice ripping, bawdy speech and the cold-blooded murder of the truth.

[nineweaving]

I loved that too. There's just an embarrassment of riches--glorious sarcasm everywhere you look.

I feel like a kid with three bags of Halloween candy.

Nine

[sovay]

There's just an embarrassment of riches--glorious sarcasm everywhere you look.

"While all of this plot is enough, Anonymous piles on: not only must Edward be a daunting man with his pen, but also with his 'pen,' that is, he beds the queen, in flashbacks where he’s played by Jamie Campbell Bower and she by Joely Richardson. Here she’s smitten by his gift for verse, illustrated in a scene where she tosses him out in a pique, but is won back over as he mutters fabulous poetry while approaching her: we see his naked back and her seated, gazing up at his mouth but eventually facing his penis, which she proceeds to adore." -PopMatters.

[nineweaving]

Under the circumstances, I can't say 'I'm speechless.'"

Nine

[sovay]

The Guardian is looking today at why the authorship controversy happened in the first place, which I appreciate.

[kalimac]

I wish he didn't use "fantasy" to mean "appealing lies". Otherwise, interesting analysis.

[ron_drummond]

I love this:

"Taken as a serious account of real history, this is so plainly daft, and so wildly at variance with all the copious evidence we have about Shakespeare, the Elizabethan theatre, Oxford, Elizabeth and Southampton alike, that it is beyond rational refutation. Taken as a version of one of our culture's perennially recurring daydreams, however - the tale of the oppressed rightful prince, wickedly deprived of his true heritage and recognition - it ought to give us serious food for thought about the ease with which fantasy, in some minds, can prove far more compelling than mere truth."

[nineweaving]

Hypocritical toad.

Nine

[kalimac]

Rick Warner, Bloomberg News (there's probably more copies of this too)

[nineweaving]

Thanks!

"...ridiculous and baffling...'Anonymous' is how the filmmakers should have listed their contributions in the credits."

Nine

[kalimac]

Those are exactly the words that I would have quoted from it, had it not slipped my mind to do so.