I find this even more disingenuous:
If I had thought you were lying, I would have said that.
If I were referring to your post specifically, I would have said that.
If I had thought your command of the language needed the following, I would have selected a different quote as an example.
dis·in·gen·u·ous/ˌdisinˈjenyo͞oəs/
Adjective:
Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
I, too, thought, “Don’t you people have jobs to do or houses to clean or just lives to live, that you have so much time and passion to discuss this?”
While I read all four pages.
And clicked on every link.
And read most of those.
I am now far better informed than I ever saw any need to be on the contemporaneous references to the glover’s son, and for what purpose? It certainly won’t change my appreciation of the works.
That is good, but that last bit is still problematic.
As the anti-Shakespeareans love to say, “acknowledging Oxford’s authorship radically transforms our understanding of politics, propaganda and history as well as our understanding of the author and three centuries of scholarship about him.” -Shakespeare Oxford Society. And that is BTW one of the main subjects of the movie Anonymous.
Their purpose is to not only change the appreciation of the works, but the anti-Shakespeareans also want to alter history itself. As the evidence that I have seen so far shows.
Well, sure, but I’m smarter than them.
And, so what? They want to change our understanding of politics and history? Every decent non fiction book does that - often a good thing - and does Elizabethan propaganda really matter at this point?
The only question that matters is, does it change our appreciation of the work?
For some, it might.
You talk like if outfits like FOX are incapable of convincing a good chunk of the population that we never landed on the moon.
While we can be happy to know that we are smart, the unfortunate thing is that there is money to be made by the attempt at changing history and getting many gullible people to believe in the fiction rather than the truth, you may think it is not important, but I do think it is; one of my passions is history and I do agree with many experts that honesty is not just good for current affairs, but also for the past ones.
Well, no I wasn’t, I was making the point that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
[Hmm. I must admit, that didn’t end up so well, did it?]
So, your passion is history. That is good. But I was talking about literature. The literary worth of Shakespeare’s work does not depend on who wrote the work. It just … doesn’t, glover’s son or debt riddled nobleman, the words are the same.
My other point is that being dismissive does not fight ignorance. I think Waenara’s posts are more effective.
Furthermore, you know what? Sometimes people really are ‘just asking questions’. They’ve heard someone say something, and instead of scrolling through 600,000+ google hits, they hope someone here can point them in a reasonable direction. And a lot of people here were willing to do so. Not everyone is a Conspiracy Theorist; some people just don’t want to re-invent the wheel.
None of which has anything to do with who got hijacked by pirates and when.
I’m just saying that you should be aware that those are also standard issue points from the anti-Shakespeare people, it is a rhetorical tactic to tell others that we should not worry about who the writer is so it is easy to then dismiss Shakespeare, problem is, as the most up to date flavor of the conspiracy goes, we also should ignore what the history books say about queen Elizabeth. And the last link I posted does go to the discussion of the evidence that is out there, I do not dismiss something without looking first or telling others where to look.
No, you didn’t, and I should have been more careful than to imply that.
I would also point out that I never said it is not important who wrote the works, but only that it is of no literary significance.
I’m well aware that the book debunks the alternative authorship theories. As I said, I’ve read and would recommend another of Shapiro’s books, 1599: A Year in the Life of Shakespeare.
Then that is entirely a character flaw on your part, because I always post sincerely and candidly. I suspect you’re projecting your own flaws onto me; as such, there’s no real point in engaging with you.
Okay, I wasn’t sure of your motivation in getting Shapiro’s book.
I wonder if Little Nemo will appear in this thread again, and defend his putting on his list of pro-conspiracy works Shapiro’s anti-conspiracy book attacking his (Little Nemo’s) case so effectively again.
Any chance we could see that proof?
Seconded
Bumping, in the hope of hearing from Little Nemo (or RealityChuck).
Seconded, for RealityChuck