Talk:Shakespearean authorship

Notes

I'm going to vent here in a way that doesn't quite fit in a encyclopedia article -even the draft of one. Writing an article on the Shakespearean authorship question gives us an opportunity to explore the way in which a wiki based encyclopedia should handle controversial issues.

Despite, or perhaps because of, my firm belief that the proposition that the Shakespeare plays were written by anyone other than William Shakespeare is nonsense, I concur with the idea that an article on the question should be fair. I believe a fair presentation a fair presentation of the facts will inevitably leave the reader convinced that Shakespeare was Shakespeare. The controversialist's idea of fair tends to involve uncritical presentation of their ideas. what i'd like to do is present the anti-Shakespearean position and the obvious flaws I see in their arguments.

It seems to be that the anti-Shakespearean argument rests on two basic assumptions:

   * That Shakespeare's background was materially and intellectually impoverished.

   * And that the writer of the plays, by way of contrast must have had a rich background.

I believe that neither is the case.

Some anti-Shakespeareans go so far as to claim that Shakespeare didn't go to school since there are no surviving records. Never mind that there are no records at all from the time for Stratford's grammar school, or that this is by no means uncommon. The evidence that Shakespeare had a grammar school education, while circumstantial, is strong. Stratford had a grammar school and Shakespeare, as the son of a local official, was entitled to attend.

Other antis while conceding take the view that the author of some of the greatest works in world literature must surely have had a university education. A cursory survey of the greats of English Lit. would tend to cast doubt on this

   * Dickens-no
   * Dr. Jonson-a few months
   * Jane Austen-no
   * Orwell-no

The number of authors who either didn't attend university, got "sent down" (expelled), or studied subjects of no particular use in their future careers as writers suggests that the cause and effect relationship between literary ability and higher education is far from cut and dried. I tend to think that people bright enough to be good writers tend to attend university if given the chance; university doesn't make them good writers.

Then there's the question of the various places and fields of knowledge that the plays touch on. It's always been my impression that theatre is not a good medium for conveying background information. If you want to be like Arthur Hailey, write a novel. Do we really get any idea of what renaissance Venice was like from Merchant of Venice? -Derek Hodges 21:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)