Comment from Ulla

Excellent

Hi Stacia, I thoroughly enjoyed your mini thesis on Shakespeare. I have never heard any of the arguments against him being authentic. Have never really been bothered about it either to tell the truth. But I would defend him any day. Being Danish and grown up with Hamlet as second nature is one reason. I also had to endure to read other pieces of his work in English lessons at school. Remember my first language is Danish. But to say he was a fake is outrageous. Thanks for defending him in a professional manner. Very well written throughout. All the best. Ulla:))

 Comment Written 15-Nov-2016

---

reply by the author on 03-Dec-2016

Thanks for the reading and review, Ulla! Good to hear from you. Sorry for the delay in response.
It's great to hear that "Hamlet" resonates with Danes:) Glad also that you learned other Shakespeare work. Very tough going for young students whose first language is not English--it's difficult enough for English speakers! I commend you for sticking with it:)
Thanks again for stopping by:)
Stacia

Comment from Marykelly

Excellent

It's nice to see you come to the defense of such a distinguished character as William Shakespeare and uphold his authenticity so well and so thoroughly. In my college English classes the question of Shakespeare's authorship came up but was never accepted as true. You have reminded me of many of the arguments supporting him, and I can't help but agree with you and say thanks for such a comprehensive overview of the issue.

 Comment Written 15-Nov-2016

---

reply by the author on 03-Dec-2016

Thanks, Mary, for the reading and review! Much appreciated.
Yes, you're right, this is a summation--the arguments I've made here are not original, nor is any argument that Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare:) It's accepted in the field Shakespeare the man was Shakespeare the writer.
Thank you again for your interest and stopping by:)
Stacia

Comment from Sandra Stoner-Mitchell

Excellent

I have read this theory before, and discounted it as being nonsense. As you rightly point out, there were no computers in those days, it was all word of mouth, and there lies the problem. One person says something, which is elaborated on until the truth of the matter has totally disappeared. You have laid your explanation out methodically and simply, and I have to tell you, I totally agree with all the points you raise. Well done, this was a very interesting read. Sandra xx

 Comment Written 15-Nov-2016

---

reply by the author on 03-Dec-2016

Thank you, Sandra, for the reading and review! Much appreciated.
Yes, piecing together the "truth," especially from a far distant past, is a challenge. Today we have TOO much documentation, making it hard to fathom why someone like Shakespeare wouldn't have files upon files of records on him somewhere:)
Thank you again for stopping by.
Stacia

Comment from snowhood

Excellent

Fantastic, where to begin?
Excellent argument, logical, plausible, and provable. Never have I heard of the Oxblahblah, no need to repeat the name of nothing important. Nice points, I thought about how they would feel about he fact not much was known about Jesus before his later life. No I'm not saying Shakespear is akin to Jesus just noting for even very accepted historical figures their early years are not known. Acceptance by your peers I believe is the strongest argument. Also in the education of a young mind no doubt you have seen many that only need a nudge, not college or hours of repetitive thought to come up with one of their own. Genius yes, was he on the autism spectrum, don't know. However what is common fails to interest even the unaffected. He was incredible and though not born to privilege or traveling the world(so supposed) he possessed that rare thing that people hate who have none, imagination. Thank you for sharing.

 Comment Written 15-Nov-2016

---

reply by the author on 03-Dec-2016

Thanks, Snow, for the reading and review! Much appreciated. You actually draw a good comparison of Shakespeare to Jesus--the main testimony as to Jesus's life is, I believe, the Gospels, by his apostles. Jesus went through life without note, as most people do, or did, before computers, but I'm fairly sure he existed. Records were simply not kept in the past as they are now.
Thank you again for stopping by:)
Stacia

Comment from LIJ Red

Excellent

Well, between idle curiosity and your good presentation, I read this whole thing,
and expect that Oxford had little or nothing to do with Shakespeare's theatre.
Whether that Bacon chap or unknown ghost writers, or even a team led by Willie boy
did the writing, who knows. Does it matter? Excellent post.

 Comment Written 15-Nov-2016

---

reply by the author on 15-Nov-2016

Hi, LIJ, thanks for the reading and review.
I suspect you're right; the plays themselves matter more than who actually wrote them. I suppose the authorship also matters for full understanding of the plays and the context they arose from. Delving into the authorship question also ignited in me curiosity again about that context.
Thank again for stopping by!
All the Best,
Stacia

Comment from Thomas Bowling

Excellent

A great lesson on my great, great,great Grandfather. William Shakespeare. He would be proud. Personally, I don't care who William Shakespear was or wasn't. It was obviously the work of one genius. That's all I need to know.

 Comment Written 14-Nov-2016

---

reply by the author on 14-Nov-2016

Thanks, Thomas:) I think you have the right sentiment-- the work is ultimately more important than its creator.
Thanks again for stopping by and the review. Much appreciated.

Comment from heisemg

Excellent

A very convincing argument, and a step by step repudiation of the Oxfordian's argument. In fact using their own arguments to refute them. I will go with Occam's razor, that the simplest explanation is the best explanation. Simply stated as: Shakespeare was Shakespeare.

 Comment Written 13-Nov-2016

---

reply by the author on 13-Nov-2016

Thanks, MG, for the reading and review:) Much appreciated.
This is actually the mainstream argument, that Shakespeare was Shakespeare, the one still taught in school, for a reason.
What bothers me most is the way "Oxfordians" just present their position as factual, with no evidence and begging the question, just because they believe it.
Thanks again for stopping by:)
Stacia

Comment from mvbrooks

Excellent

First of all, this has a GREAT title that draws in the reader's curiosity. Well-documented and clearly presented arguments support your claim.

 Comment Written 13-Nov-2016

---

reply by the author on 13-Nov-2016

Thanks so much for the review, Brooks! Much appreciated.
I wondered about the title, if it quite works (does everyone still know the reference? The reference? Amd actually--a letter reassuring the reader that Santa does exist may be counter to the claim that Shakespeare is not a myth, not like "Santa.") I decided to keep it anyway.
Thanks again for stopping by:)
Stacia

Comment from giraffmang

Excellent

Hi there,

An Oxfordian isn't just someone who prescribes to this theory. it is also a catch term for residents of the town and county. It is probably more apt to refer to them as Oxfordian theorists. In case you're wondering I'm married to an Oxfordian and I lived there for quite some time.

It may be an idea to put a clear line between the points to emphasise as well as the bold.

candidate to write have written Shakespeare's plays. - this is rather awkwardly expressed.

F,Scott Fitzgerald was in fact born and lived in the US (the Irish-catholic is pretty irrelevant to this analogy), also of UPPer middle class, closer to the elite than not. Also whilst at Princeton he moved in circles with said elite including a certain Chicago socialite who was the basis for Daisy in 'The Great Gatsby' - I think the comparison is a little labored and not quite the same thing.

Occam's razor arguments are also arguments of convenience. What's more convincing - Jesus was the son of god or a preacher? Man landed on the moon in 1969 or it was faked? JFK was shot by one man, or several?

If the case for Shakespeare being Shakespeare is based on a faulty, convenient theory then we have a problem!

Just for the record though. I believe he was himself.
GMG

 Comment Written 05-Nov-2016

---

reply by the author on 05-Nov-2016

Hi GMG! Thanks for the great response:) You're the second person I've heard from on the site who has some expertise in the matter of Oxfordian theory. Your comments are very helpful.
You bring up a great point about the term "Oxfordian" and its application. In light of your comments here--that the term may be applied to someone who lives in Oxford (perhaps as well as actually having gone to Oxford University?), I would take that maybe the term has been somewhat "hijacked" by those who subscribe to Oxford theory. Perhaps they are deliberately misrepresenting themselves as either being from Oxford or graduates of Oxford University and giving them some false impression of authority.
I debated on calling Fitzgerald "Irish Catholic." I finally decided to--you'll note I said "Irish Catholic ORIGIN," the way I'm of Russian origin, without ever even having been there. Perhaps "Irish heritage" would be better or "Irish American." I saw this as relevant because those of Irish heritage were looked down upon in Fitzgerald's day; they were considered lower-class, often, and also not "white," by many. Fitzgerald was likely to have encountered "No dogs or Irish allowed" signs or the like at some point. This is perhaps analogous to the way some people regard those of Hispanic or Latin origin today, regardless of their actual financial status or skin tone. I agree most Fanstory readers are unlikely to know this background, and I should clarify it.
Fitzgerald's family had run into severe financial difficulties when he was a young adult, and I don't think even he considered himself in any way upper class. ("The rich are different from you and me," is a famous quote attributed to him.)
I always took Daisy Buchanan of "The Great Gatsby" as having been modeled after Fitzgerald's wife Zelda. There are similarities. Daisy was a well-off debutante from the South, as was Zelda. Jay Gatsby had to go out and earn money to even have a chance at Daisy, as did Scott Fitzgerald with Zelda--he went and courted her after earning money from the sale of "This Side of Paradise," his first well-received novel.
I was assuming the reader knew this background, a huge assumption even for the well-read FS member, and I should clarify, I agree.
Thanks again for your time and great feedback. Hope you stop by again soon. I'll take a look at your work as soon as possible.
Stacia

Comment from dejohnsrld (Debbie)

Excellent

A fascinating write, my friend. I heard a long time ago that Shakespeare may not have written his work, but didn't know the details of the argument. You have written a good description of the background and a convincing analysis of why this theory should not be believed. Best wishes in the contest~Debbie

 Comment Written 05-Nov-2016

---

reply by the author on 05-Nov-2016

Thanks, Debbie! Always great to get such validating feedback. Much appreciated.
Several "Shakespeare candidates" have been proposed over the years: Shakespeare's contemporaries Christopher Marlowe and the Lord of Oxford are major contenders for the title. There's even an Oxfordian Society devoted to "Oxfordian Theory" or this belief that Edward de Vere, the Lord of Oxford, was Shakespeare. They have a website if you're interested in reading the opposition:)
Thanks again for stopping by! I'll have a look at your work as soon as possible.
Stacia