This document discusses the debate around whether William Shakespeare actually wrote the plays and poems traditionally attributed to him. Some key points discussed include: - Some scholars argue that Shakespeare could not have produced such a vast and high-quality body of work given his relatively modest education. They argue other noblemen like Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, were likely the true authors. - However, others argue the records showing Shakespeare as the author are sufficient. References to Shakespeare as a writer exist from his own time period. - Some oppose teaching Shakespeare in schools because they feel his works do not represent diverse cultural perspectives and experiences. Others counter that Shakespeare captured the human condition in a timeless way.

1. April 6, 2016 Justin Weidner
For Me, or Not For Me?
(“Teaching the Bard: a lesson”)
That is a question, if not the question. In academia, or just outside of
it, there is a dispute.Heated debate,simmering argument. Call it like
you see it, if not for what it is. Then again, condensationcan be
precipitous.Hot air can be a smokescreen.Depending on whom you
ask, it’s everything or nothing. Everyone or no one. Advocates say it’s
a myth and everybodyelse says it’s just mythical. I’m talking about
Shakespeare,not Santa.
Is he the real deal? Is he even real? Half the battle is saying you have
no argument, while the other half says that argument is dumb. 50/50?
The majority of scholars think otherwise. In addition, if you break
down the dissent, it fractures piecemealinto pieces.Conceivable
truth becomes half-truth. Of those who insist on duplicity, many have
interpretations. Although you may find a number of contrarians, they
think differently.
Mark Twain held that Francis Bacon is Shakespeare,while others
debate about contemporaries Ben Jonsonand Christopher Marlowe.
Elizabeth I is suggested. Anonymousexhibits Edward de Vere. There
are many contenders,if not pretenders.All told, the last option is the
most lasting. Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford,entertains the
most support.Individuals who postulate him are known as
“Oxfordians.” It is not clear who Oxford himself endorsed.
Twain: “The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.”
What we do know is those who defend the Bard of Avon can be
labelled “Stratfordians.” They assert legitimacy. Rather, Oxford was
too early. A few of Shakespeare’s plays were allegedly written after
de Vere died in 1604.12. As such, any contention about dating must
agree posthumouslyposthaste. Analysis can’t even agree to
disagree.Oxfordians disagree to do so. They disagree to disagree.If
they allowed it, they would be accepting a false objective.

2. And this affair is all about objectivity. In turn, the formermaintain
Oxfordians are one-sided,if not one-dimensional,like the thoughts of
a dead flower. Or grappling with the ghost of your late father. It’s hard
to kill something that’s already gone. You have to get at the root of
the problem.Chopping off limbs is just like decapitating hydras
insofar as they’ll grow back. If we convince ourselves that
Shakespeare didn’t exist, we can equally contend that his writing
didn’t, either.
Oxfordians typically aren’t opining that he isn’t as good as you think,
but that it’s just as well if he was someone else.I mention Santa
Claus in the sense that I’m not discussing him. What’s funny is they
treat this like a Santa rumor. Not the one that he’s coming this year.
Instead, like it’s time we all finally grow up or something.
“Shakespeare has had 400 years to get over himself.Why can’t
you?” “Getover myself?” “Shakespeare.Get over yourself.”
I won’t get into the evidence against his authorship, but here we go:
one argument is Shakespeare had little education. ‘Consequently, he
could never have produced the immense quantity, let alone quality of
work attributed to him. There just isn’t enough time in the day. It
would take the son of a glove maker even longer than an equally
educated aristocrat, so I’m more inclined to ascribe this to a coalition
or tribe of authors.’
‘Firstly, there’s 24 hours in everyone’s day, regardless of whether you
are commonplace ornobility. The same laws of nature apply to
Santa, even if he doesn’t abide by them. In one lifetime,he’s been
pretty prolific,too. Secondly,do you think Santa attended an elite
Santa schoolin order to get where he is today? The closestthing we
have to that is trade schooland who knows if Santa could even afford
the tuition? To what degree?’
If not, there wouldn’t have been any Santa yet to deliver himself the
fee.‘Yeah, but he has all those elves helping him.’ ‘Yeah, but
Shakespeare has all those genes helping him.’ One thing to keep in
mind is that there is a little, if not little consensus about the man. We
are reasonably sure that a guy named “William Shakespeare” lived in
the same area at the same time as the ‘alleged’ Shakespeare.He
even has a grave. In Shakespeare’s hometown, no less!

3. “Good friend for Jesus sake forbeare,
To dig the dust enclosed here.
Blessed be the man that spares these stones,
And cursed be he that moves my bones.”
“Sounds like an invitation to me!” I’m not sure explicit requests for
lifeless autonomy equate to the opposite ofthat. Just because he
expired doesn’t mean his wishes did. That’s why we have a will, if not
a Will. Shakespeare signed his himself,which validates it. A certain
point of contention is that, while we know when he died, we’re not
sure of his birth. Many identify the 23rd of April, on which he also
experienced death. 1616.
For some,dying on your birthday is a bit too poignant, even for
Shakespeare.Others are more logical: ‘If we don’t know his birthday,
maybe he just didn’t have one.’ Thinking is inconsistent elsewhere:
‘We don’t know Jesus’exact birthday, but we still believe in him!’ And
what do we know about Jesus and Claus? Little. While the amount of
information about Shakespeare’s life seems paltry in accordance with
our social media digitization, it’s actually decent.
To be sure, if he died today, we’d know a lot more about him. Not just
because there would be a lot more of him to know about. Information
is more readily compiled and accessed.There is more data, but the
same data also appears in many places.It is harder to achieve
worldwide fame on foot.That said, you’re now one in 7 billion.
Shakespeare was about one in 580 million, if not several dozen
candidates.
Many argue there was no Shakespeare before him and, as yet, none
after. This is easy to confirm. Whoeverhe was, there was only one of
him. If you add the people who preceded him to those who followed,
he is about one in a hundred billion. The argument is that
Shakespeare is timeless;not just once-in-a-lifetime, but once. Once
Upon a Universe. Let’s not deify. The point is an exceptionalhuman,
no less––ifnot just no more.
When someone is alive, it is harder to separate them from their work
and vice versa. In 1600,he was very much a 36-year-old source of

4. entertainment. As such, the people who knew Shakespeare viewed
him in their time, on their own time. They didn’t look at his work with
400 years of affirmation. It wasn’t obligatory. He has taken on a life of
his own, beyond the one he actually had. He’s no longer just a guy, if
he ever was. Let’s be clear: he probably was.
He didn’t come out of nowhere. Like evolution, his legacy has
evolved. Part of scholarship is figuring out how style evokes
substance. Find traces of Shakespeare in his writing. This is
challenging, but among the few immediate links. In some ways, his
work is a clearer representation than any facts could be. One idea is
that Shakespeare was Shakespeare,but not the one we thought he
was. A real person,but a stand-in.
This does some of the legwork. He existed as a poetic beard of sorts,
if not a bard. A number of people think it’s easy to believe educated
nobles were responsible.The truth is, it’s harder to imagine the plays
in the first place. If you can get past their existence, it’s easier to
considerwho wrote them. If it isn’t a stretch to go from Shakespeare
to Edward, it’s the same distance back. It’s even less if you don’t go.
For conspiracists,going backwards is betterthan not. At least you’re
moving. Somehow,it’s a biggerstretch for Shakespeare to be
Shakespeare than for him to be de Vere. The idea that he existed is
evidence that he didn’t. In turn, the question is not whether he was a
fraud, but whether he was at all. Two guys have detailed how
Shakespeare was himself,if not preciselywho he was. They suggest
a constellation of irrefutable data.
Generally, misunderstanding arises because of incomplete
understanding. If Oxford used a pseudonym,he certainly wasn’t
committed to it. In 1598,Francis Meres attributed a number of plays
to Avon. “Sadly for Oxfordians, he mentions Edward Earl of Oxford as
being a writer of comedyin the same paragraph as he does
Shakespeare.” William Basse scribed an elegy for “Wm.
Shakespeare” between1616 and 1623.It is subtitled,“He died in
April 1616.”
We know it was written at least April 1616 because he wouldn’t have
known Shakespeare died before then––because he didn’t. There is

5. little record of contemporaries because that was commonplace.
People make a big deal of Shakespeare’s absence because his
presence is typically relegated to the Biblical, fictional, or both.
Ironically, nobody fussed about modernissues until centuries after he
died. The guy who started it did so in jest.
Samuel Schmuker was “dismayed about the academic trend of using
historical and biographical evidence to doubt the existence of Christ.”
He noted that “the same approaches could be used to argue that
Shakespeare never existed.” In 1848,enough time had passed that
no one knew anyone who knew Shakespeare.It was time. These
problems have only existed insofar as Shakespeare has not. The
more time goes by, the less time he existed compared to the Earth.
I got into this because someone mentioned a teacher saying he
shouldn’t be taught. The authorship question is ancillary, if not just
adjacent. In this case, she doesn’t dispute his authorship, she
impugns its quality. This is totally differentbecause many who put all
that time into debating his authenticity do so to understand. They care
enough about his work to give credit to the rightful writer. They’re not
saying it was a hack.
In fact, they’re saying it was someone evenmore qualified. It wouldn’t
make sense to say, “the person who wrote all this great stuff was
equally bad.” But not everyone feels that way about him, if they feel
anything about him at all. English teacher Dana Dusbibersays, “I
dislike Shakespeare because of my own personal disinterest in
reading stories written in an early form of the English language that I
cannot always easily navigate.”
Not everyone is for Shakespeare,but Shakespeare is for everyone.
Allegedy.Dusbiberseems to be saying she doesn’t like him not just
because she doesn’t understand, but because she can’t. ‘He makes
life, if not just its portrayal, complicated.’It is preciselythe obstacle of
interpreting that requires a closerlook. You have to stop and think
about what you read before analyzing its content, which has the
effectof that analysis.
Why learn algebra when you can do mad minutes?

6. Why do something difficultwhen you can do something easy?
Dusbiberalso describes“a WORLD of really exciting literature out
there that better speaks to the needs of my very ethnically-diverse
and wonderfully curious modern-day students.” Fair. The common
core is a little dated, but it’s not like Shakespeare wrote it.
Furthermore, being old is not the same as being dated. Most people
would rather have a date than none at all.
Contrasting the “WORLD,”Dusbiberhints, “Shakespeare lived in a
pretty small world.” First of all, the world is exactly the same size as it
used to be (inflation notwithstanding). Second of all, a worldview is a
perceived existence.Awareness can be dense yet limited. In other
words, we may know more about ourselves,but Shakespeare knew
more about what he did know. Humans are subtle, but evident. We
speak for ourselves,if not on our own behalf.
Our nature is the same, but expressed variably. I doubt it has
changed much, yet the complexity of our day may obscure that as it
has Shakespeare. “It might now be appropriate for us to acknowledge
him as chronicler of life as he saw it 450 years ago and leave it at
that.” If only it were so simple.The authorship conflictwouldn’t exist.
Regardless,in adhering to such descriptions,he is even more
special. Not specialized.
The idea is despite the 16th century, he renders us deeply.The truth
is timeless.And timelessnessis always timely insofar as it’s true. I
think a few people take offense to the idea that Shakespeare
somehow‘saw’ the future. That he is of present. Inflicted by this
shadow, you may resent him. Perhaps the presence is labelled passé
or merely past tense. His stories,including himself, are an antiquated
tether. They are past being tense.
In turn, you say, Shakespeare has outstayed his welcome.In fact, his
welcome has outstayed him. According to Dusbiber,“as long as we
continue to cling to ONE (white) MAN’S view of life as he lived it so
long ago, we (perhaps unwittingly) promote the notion that other
cultural perspectivesare less important.” The mostironic part of this
is how little we know about Shakespeare. Wanting for details, he is
reduced in absentia.

7. ‘There are no details because we don’t know them.’ In terms of
history, this is an average guy. An average guy we don’t know much
about, of course;he’s average. Exceptionally average. The exception
is HIS LEGENDARYART.“Wait,” Oxfordians remark, “there’s no way
a personwho wrote these things is average. I think we can all agree
they are not average, whatever else.” Because there is no
exceptional record of their author, the ‘true’ records are not true.
We do have an exceptionalrecord of Shakespeare: his work! The
very thing that led us to believe he’s exceptional in the first place! It’s
contradictory to begin with the premise that ‘we have this exceptional
thing and if the author isn’t correspondingly“exceptional,” in our view,
we reject the author.’ Shakespeare,if he did write these things, never
had a chance. In that case,however, the ‘scant’ records would
indeed describe the author of the “exceptional.”
Again, I don’t want to deify;however, Jesus was pretty standard––
exceptfor the miracles. It is fair and possiblyaccurate to say
Shakespeare was pretty standard––exceptforhis plays (and poetry).
The artistic record is typical, but we expectmore from eminence. We
expectany record of the Bard to be as robust as his writing. It’s not.
This leaves a vacuum. We have Shakespeare as an author and
Shakespeare as a man. History does not bridge the gap definitively.
We get the feeling of Shakespeare as his work, rather than its author.
The plays take on an historical sentience. It’s like they designed
themselves.Imagine him exclaim, ‘Who cares who wrote it? It
practically wrote itself.’ No matter who, it’s human. I think there’s
something disappointing about that––fordissidents.It’s required, but
it’s fallible. Taken as gospel,a matter of faith. Teaching the Bible is
contentious.
–––––––––––––––
Shakespeare is neither God nor Jesus;his plays are not the Bible. In
other words, in other words. He is opposedin the same way. It’s the
inclination to reject religious studies.Dusbiberis saying, “I don’t
believe in that.” Shakespeare has been mythologized. As such,
witness the argument that he is fake, if not just a fraud. A central
discord is social justice. I understand the difficulty promoting a guy
who existed an eternity prior to a lot of civil rights and legislation.

8. A lot has happened in 400 years; a lot happened in the preceding
199,600.If Shakespeare himself is not problematic,however, it’s the
absence of the problematicalthat is. Bigotry is controversial on paper,
whether it’s actually written there. ‘If he doesn’tspeak about issues,
he can’t speak to them. He’s a bad example of his day or any day
because he isn’t overtly sexist or racist. If you think he wasn’t,
however, that’s just you putting him on a pedestal.’
What about Shylock? The Venetians aren’t especiallykeen on him. ‘If
you portray anti-Semitism in fiction, you must yourself be anti-
Semitic.’ It is suspectto impute labels to him even if his characters
are suspect.A postalludes to the difference betweenart and artist.
Note the comparable difference betweenlabel and libel. Attributing
white privilege and prejudice is more involved than saying ‘he was
white and lived in 1600.’ ‘Is it?’
Dusbiberdoes herself a disservice in slight inspectionof the catalog,
though it is a refreshingly honest way of disqualifying it. Most who
teach him are probably not bold enough to say they neither get him
nor care to. Alternatively, many who claim the opposite don’t. It is
pretentious to say anyone can understand him. It’s also pretentious to
say you can’t. In the number who are forced to read him or will be,
however, it’s fair to say plenty have yet to.
Some say he’s inscrutable, others say he’s an open book.
‘Shakespeare doesn’t understand Shakespeare.’ Or, ‘Shakespeare
doesn’teven know who Shakespeare is.’ It isn’t that he’s too good for
you or vice versa. He’s worthy of being read and you’re worthy of
reading him. Love or hate, bad or good––youdecide.Be indifferent.
But being indifferentto that indifference is premature. Earn
disinterest.“I don’t understand” is not “I do not compute.”
You have to ask yourself who is more qualified to say he sucks. Is it
people who ‘get’ him or the few, the proud who don’t? There is an
integrity about disliking Shakespeare such that you don’t read
thoroughly. ‘I couldn’t even get through it I was so repulsed.’On the
other hand, those who say he’s inferior yet deciphered The Complete
Works must not have disliked him too much; otherwise, they wouldn’t
have beenable to stand it.

9. Dusbibersuggests,“we need to find the time to let them choose their
own literature.” Yes; let’s let students recommend books to
themselves they haven’t read. This may not be a bad idea if you have
a teacher like Dusbiberwho already dismissesthe Bard. Students
may end up liking him anyway. On the other hand, the entire point of
the curriculum is to capitalize on the educator’s expertise. Let them
designtheir curriculum, expect The DeathlyHallows.
“Let them eat cake.”
The “need to find the time” is necessarybecause they will take theirs
reducing homework to its lowest commondenominator. Dusbiber
asks, “why not teach the oral tradition out of Africa, which includes an
equally relevant commentary on human behavior? Why not teach
translations of early writings or oral storytelling from Latin America or
Southeast Asia [or] other parts of the world?” Relevant, no doubt.
Ethnical and racial issues subsistin existential ones.
Cultural and existential insight aren’t mutually exclusive. They’re
inextricable. We’re in humanity and a universe. Community is our
mode of being. The issue is not whether complexity can be
demonstrated,but how well it has been demonstrated. We study
Shakespeare in layers. It’s important to understand historical context.
If we only read him to learn about 1600,however, he’d be a lot more
quaint. He’d be history.
Dusbiberrefers to Shakespeare as if this is the case. ‘He’s history.’
She’s saying we’ve already looked into WesternEurope so long, it’s
time for somebodyelse to get a shot. ‘The only reason Shakespeare
is held in such regard is because he’s gotten so much attention, like
Donald Trump. If we study these other things for 400 years, we’ll
realize they’re just as good.History favors itself and is filtered through
the lens of Westerncivilization.’
No one is saying he writes excellent Chinese literature. They’re not
even saying he writes terrible Chinese literature. In fact, a
considerable readership might assert he’s not literary. The plays were
meant to be performed.They are theatrical, if not just dramatic. That
said, they were also printed. The First Folioin 1623.His work existed

10. in quartos prior to 1600.‘If he’s to be performed,it’s theater. Put him
in drama class.’ Why not both?
Shakespeare invented over 1700 words.English without him would
be like Latin without 1700 Latin words––notto mention their
declensions.Dusbiberis resolved to “leave Shakespeare out of the
English curriculum entirely.” Does she want to give words back?
Should we disavow words like “jaded,” “equivocal,” and discontent?”
These words help her contention; they help her speak English, in
general. Dismissing Shakespeare is, vaguely, dismissing herself.
Dusbiberasks of African oral tradition or translations of early Latin
American or Southeast Asia or other parts of the world. She
complains about the difficulty and complexity of Old English, but
wants to impart translations of other languages. English is still the
mother tongue of the United States, although the skill with which it is
spokenvaries. What’s closerto English? Old English or Swahili?
Nuance is, at times, lost in translation.
You can find Shakespeare in Swahili or Chinese and, at least
thematically, he’s probably still all right. Shakespeare has been
translated into 80 languages, if not just 80 times. He’s performed in
almost every continent. Many have been exposedto his plays.
Appropriately,he intended them for mass consumption.He was not
an academic,but an entertainer. ‘Let students read him on their own
time, as intended,’ Dusbibermight say. Maybe just cancel work for
the day.
‘Romance languages romanticize themselves.English is better
equipped to appreciate English than other languages.’ In time, we’d
see this. Indeed,if we spend more time not reading Shakespeare,
we’d think less, if not just read less of him. Dusbiberinquires as to
whether a lack of parity is scheduled:“if time is the issue in our
classrooms,perhaps we no longer have the time to study the
Westerncanon that so many of us know and hold dear.”
Does it have to be one or the other? Contrast. What is it about or not
about Shakespeare that is in need of the complementary? You don’t
throw the baby out with the bathwater, especiallyif there’s no
bathwater. ‘None of the books I’d like would ever complement

11. Shakespeare.On anything.’ She’d “let Shakespeare rest in peace.” In
turn, this is less about teaching a Shakespeare lesson and more
about teaching Shakespeare one.
Aim a cannon at the canon. Shots fired.They should entitle her post,
“Bored of the Bard.” It sounds like someone who doesn’twant to
assign the reading, let alone do it. Then again, it’s hard to expect
everyone to read 37 plays. Some people don’t even know about the
number 37. I haven’t read The Complete Works.This makes me
qualified to vet my own ignorance. I can glimpse it elsewhere
because I know it intimately.
Who better to refute or prefute, if you Will, than me? I see
inconsistencies in that I have a few. In education, I have viewed no
more than 15. You don’t have to read an entire play to appreciate a
fraction of it. Even the SparkNotes are good.Just look up
Shakespeare quotes and you’ll find some gems.They’re out of
context, but diamonds aren’t much to anyone while they’re still in the
mines. Like them, some want to dig up, if not just dig up some dirt on
Shakespeare.
His presence is such that you almost expect to find him chilling in the
dirt, perfectlyalive. What’s the point? We could definitively conclude
he’s dead or, if not, investigate. Ask him whether he was, in fact, who
he still is. How great would it be to dig up his bones like Yorick and
have someone recite Hamlet?There’s an assignment. Immersive
education. “Class, I want you to dig up his grave. Does he smelllike
he wrote those plays?”
We might be able to find out why he died, if not just that he did so.
This is valuable knowledge in the event that he’s still alive and we
can prevent his death. Get some of that diversity by injecting forensic
pathology into English class. Dusbiberis all for unconventional
learning: “Mostly, I do not believe I should do something in the
classroom just because it has ‘always beendone that way.’”
Innovation is essential to innovation.
That said, you shouldn’t do something in the classroom just because
it hasn’t “always been done that way.” If he hasn’t already, you can
literally––if not literarily––get him to roll over in his grave. Dusbiber

12. has been a secondaryteacher for 25 years. She has another 12
before she’ll even have had the chance to teach all 37. By that point,
we may even uncover Cardenio.In any case, Dusbibercan add
variety by teaching plays she hasn’t.
I mistrust the grounds for dismissing Shakespeare.The dismissal
itself is less absurd. Earth has produced many excellent stories.
Suggesting others is valid. That he should be dismissedbecause he
is not them is insane. Estimating him in terms of an unremarkable
origin misses him. Dusbiber’s avowal is more troubling than her
disavowal. She discredits herself more than Shakespeare. The
argument is a distortion.
Dusbiberlimits his cultural heritage to 1616.He’s certainly of his time
insofar as he existed in it. Culturally, however, Shakespeare is
embedded.He’s less 400 years old than 400 years new. The
Complete Works are with us because they illustrate something about
us that hasn’t changed. Shakespeare evolves in our perception.You
don’t have to be able to see the future to predictit. Some things never
change.
Dusbiberlooks at his consistencyas an inconsistency. Stagnant, if
rigid. She identifies him with a narrow view. It is preciselylimitation
that impresses.Worldlyideas are at your fingertips.Humanity is
expressedin a biggermean. Civilization is more complex;in some
ways, that complexity is more obvious. He was dealing with a smaller
sample size. Inadequate understanding and information lead to
undermining.
Dusbiber,in turn, uses the most general terms to describe him: “a
long-dead,British guy.” If someone asked to hear about
Shakespeare,you’d allude to plays. Dusbiberpicks the absolute least
distinctive features. He’s “ONE (white) MAN.” These are apt.
Accurate. They neglectthe big picture. We have little information and
she has little appreciation, if understanding (presumptuous).
Therefore,it is possibleto stereotype him egregiously.
How many people can be describedas “one long-dead white British
guy?” Many. How about Shakespeare? The writer? One. I’m okay
with that part of her analysis. Only one guy wrote his plays, though

13. conspiracists would have you think otherwise. I think that’s what
bothers me about the authorship question––if it’s up in the air, his
plays are too. We don’t have specifics,so he is connected to
characteristics we know: dead, white, British.
Of course,that’s not all he was. If it’s hard to believe in Shakespeare,
it’s harder to believe in Dusbiber.Plenty share her opinion. I’m not
sure whether that’s tragic or comic.The inability to discern is
apropos.It’s only natural that his legacy should, on some level, be
tragicomic.If The Complete Works are dated in age, the same is said
of any story. All books will be 400 years old. There won’t be books,
but stories persist.
Progressivismis nice. You always have something to look forward to,
if not back. In extremes,however, you get it for its own sake. At that
point, progress can be backwards as long as it changes. And change
is for the better, kids, if not specifically. ‘Shakespeare’s time is over.’
No kidding, he’s been dead for 400 years. If people realize that he is
a staple of our time, but not of our time, he’s better forit. He’s not
omniscient, yet he’s more than a loud echo.
In writing on Shakespeare,it’s tough to find your voice. Not that I lost
it, but that it gets lost in his. I’m tempted to take him on, if not just his
tone. That wouldn’t be consistentwith him. No one told him he had to
be Shakespeare.He was himself.If you want to be like Shakespeare
was, be yourself.The pressure of being him is 400 years old. Or, 400
years dead. Someone already had to be Shakespeare and did it such
that none of us have to. He spared us the silence.
I experience the shadow of Shakespeare. But what if he was just a
shadow? That’s the question asked. Bacon is baloney. If it’s
impossibleto believe Shakespeare had the time to achieve, it’s
impossibleto conceive a guy had time to do somebodyelse’s work.
His life was in plays; Bacon had scientific method,de Vere had
nobility. Neither had a need. This isn’t saying much for those who
have a lot to say about it. They don’t need to be convinced:they are
already.
You could write a play about all this, if not an essay. In Anonymous,
you think you could make a movie; I’m dubious. It recovered half a

14. $30 million budget. Is anyone surprised by his integrity in some kind
of theater? Conspiracy is useful if you implode.If all else fails and it’s
de Vere, you can tell yourself, “I told you so. I know something about
Shakespeare he doesn’t himself.” Unfortunately, he’s dead. You
won’t be able to tell him he wasn’t who he was.
I wasn’t sure how to write. Early in life, before I could. Decades fell.I
wasn’t sure how to write the article. It took me longer to start than
write. And it took me months to write. I’d leave, come back. I’m in
close proximity insofar as it’s on the laptop. So it was really closing
windows and reopening them. Am I going to have to write this in
iambic pentameter? I’m not about to wax poetic. Quoting? The
beginning is no end in sight. My essay is a soliloquy.
All’s well that ends...well?