"‘Weed’ can refer to cannabis or marijuana, or dagga as it is known in South Africa. And ‘invention’ refers to writing.
“So we put forward a hypothesis that Shakespeare may have used cannabis as a source of inspiration.”**
I’d like something more concrete than this. Say a passage in a diary of a contemporay of Will’s who saw him smoking the stuff or sold it to him. One obtuse translation of one passage in one sonnet is hardly good evidence.
As for the OP, I agree; it doesn’t make him any less a good writer to come up with his material from “chemical” stimulation. Poe was supposedly an alcholic, yet his writing is consider classic gothic horror. Part of this may be an effort by some who believe that Shakespeare really didn’t write many of the plays attributed to him.
Sorry, I don’t buy the idea that being drunk or stoned makes anyone a better artist.
John Lennon’s God-given talent produced “Ticket to Ride.” Drugs produced “Revolution #9.”
Chuck Berry’s God-given talent created rock and roll. Drugs created 45 minute drum solos.
Oh sure, I know there are some artists who’ll SWEAR that drugs made them more creative. But you know what- there are also millions of people who’ll SWEAR on a stack of Bibles that they’re BETTER drivers after they’ve had a few cocktails! Do you believe THEM???
Wild hemp is, however, of very little use as a fibre producer, although a drug is obtained from it.
–From 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica
Willie died in 1616 and we’re just getting around to deciding he’s a pothead. Help me here.
Hemp in the middle ages was a commercial product for sails and cloth and such. It would fall under the banner of “Industrial hemp” which, if smoked, would most likely produce a headache instead of a buzz.
Methinks the BBC is getting a touch sensational.
Isn’t cannabis a New World product? How available or common was it to the bourgeoisie in Shakespeare’s time?
astorian, are you suggesting that “Revolution #9” made it from conception to writing to recording to producing without ever being evaluated in a sober state of mind? We’re only talking about inspiration here, not the entire creative process. The recreational substances used by MacLen could have greased the wheels that created “Ticket to Ride” just as easily as those that made “Revolution #9.” I don’t know how you can even argue the point unless you are Paul McCartney or John Lennon.
IMH(and it would seem outnumbered)O, If he did use pot for creativity, his art remains in tact, but his personal “genius” (which I doubt existed to begin with) would be diminished. It seems like the easy way out of writers block.
Um, if you’re going to try to make a valid point, you should not resort to moronically reductionist (not to mention easily refuted) arguments.
Lennon and the Beatles were already smoking pot by the time “Ticket to Ride” was written; the stories of the boys being high on the set of Help! are legion. The use of marijuana and LSD were responsible for Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt. Pepper, widely considered the work of the Beatles at their creative peak. “She Said, She Said,” was the direct result of an LSD-tinged conversation, while “Got To Get You Into My Life” was a paean written about the joys of pot, to cite just two examples. The clean and sober (mostly) Paul McCartney, on the other hand, has graced us in recent years with forgettable albums like Off the Ground.
Looking at other artists, heroin use resulted in Layla and Other Love Songs, one of the most amazingly powerful rock albums ever recorded.
That’s an excellent point. One could just as easily speculate that Shakespeare’s writing was less creative when he was using pot (if he used it at all).
In other words, this whole “Willy used cannabis for inspiration” idea is based on the most tenuous of logic.
That’s an excellent point. One could just as easily speculate that Shakespeare’s writing was less creative when he was using pot (if he used it at all).
In other words, this whole “Willy used cannabis for inspiration” idea is based on the most tenuous of logic.
My first semester in school, I attended an honors discussion seminar called National Issues Forum. We wrote a short position paper regarding each issue we discussed. One particular paper, about free speech, was written under an almost paralytic high. I printed it out without so much as a spell check, and handed it in. The next week, my professor told me, personally, that my paper was the best one he had read all semester (the seminar was made up of all Presidential Scholars, the 10 “best” incoming students of the year).
So, thanks for your endorsement of me as a “real genius.”
(Interestingly enough, my paper focused around the use of free speech as a way to ensure rational, critical examination of ideas, and envisioned forums of discussion that, in retrospect, sound a lot like the SDMB, and this was before I ever knew about it. Go fig.)
Several years ago I ran a D&D game for some friends of mine, gaming veterans who would generally brook no lame “Monty Haul” campaigns or poor storytelling. So on Mondays, my day off, my roommate and I would enjoy nature’s bounty and I would write up the next week’s storyline. On Friday or Saturday I would re-read my notes, edit for clarity, and then run the adventure on Sunday.
Worked like a champ–we ran for nearly a year, never missing a session.
IOW, it worked for me.
I guess my only point is that it is possible to be more creative under the influence. Not required, but possible.