dirac, on May 7 2010, 02:51 AM, said:
[There are strong arguments against Oxford, but surely the "character issue" isn't one of them. Many great writers have been men of unsavory reputation. And Tudor courts were malicious places
All true, of course. But the layers of empathy and sensitivity in Shakespeare are so extensive and so deep. There's also the matter of Shakespeare's knowledge of and caring about a wide range of social classes, as Quiggin says. "Human flaws" are compatible with these qualities and no doubt enrich them. But only to a point, I think.
On the other hand, Oxford was
a dashing looking fellow and a snappy dresser -- http://image.ebook30...51ajfssyy9l.jpg
This is a definite plus in movie-making. Oxford (misunderstood, with a secret life of sensitivity and endless scribbling) would provide a wonderful role in the right screenwriter's hands. A younger Johnny Depp, perhaps?
My own theory, one based on the kind of intuitive thinking and evidence drawn from the Works themselves, is that a plausible case can be made for the claim that "Shakespeare" was actually Gwyneth Paltrow.
Quiggin, thanks very much for:
[T]here is way to access TLS by signing up for their weekly alerts and you get access to three articles each week (of their choice). By that route here is the link to the article:
Charles Nicholl on new James Shapiro book, "Contested Will"
I like the print edition, which I can mark up with underlining and circlings, etc. -- but have often wished to have access to the online version for Linking, etc. What did you think about the article?