Currently viewing the tag: "authorship controversy"

Shakespeare Didn’t Have the Internet: Oh Noes!

By On 02/11/2011 · 11 Comments

Thank you, John Orloff, for another history lesson:

There’s no Internet in 1600. He had no library. No books. There were no public libraries. You cannot write about 16th century law accurately because you’re gifted. You can only do that because you understand 16th century law. I just don’t believe the genius theory.

[...]

Continue Reading →

How Shakespeare Could Write Shakespeare

By On 31/10/2011 · 16 Comments

Or, as my original title had it, “Shakespeare as Usual”:

My op-ed in The Montreal Gazette, responding to Oxfordian Keir Cutler’s piece published last Thursday.

Here’s how it starts:

I don’t think Keir Cutler (“There is method in this madness,” Opinion, Oct. 27) and others who believe Shakespeare wasn’t Shakespeare are certifiably mad. [...]

Continue Reading →

Shakespearean Mythbusting I: The Fantasy of the Unsurpassed Vocabulary

By On 23/10/2011 · 19 Comments

As I argued in a post last week, academic Shakespeareans need to confront those who make it their mission to convince the public that Shakespeare didn’t write the plays Shakespeare wrote. We can’t afford to ignore these claims, lest we appear scared, indifferent, or silently consenting. But unlike some of my colleagues, I think [...]

Continue Reading →

Enough Already

By On 18/10/2011 · 162 Comments

For the longest time, academic Shakespeare specialists have simply ignored the so-called authorship controversy. In the face of a steady stream of books proposing one supposed “real Shakespeare” after another, we in the academy have largely shrugged and turned back to the kind of work we consider important, relevant, and worthwhile; and most of that [...]

Continue Reading →