3 ms·

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_Was_a_Woman_and_Other_Heresies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_Was_a_Woman_and_Ot...

• bazoom42 3y ago
  What is the relevance?
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• djur 3y ago
  Like all alternative authorship theories, this one is based on a fundamental misunderstanding, that being that "great art" is necessarily biographical or reflects the "soul" of the artist. Once you've made that error, you can trivially point out that Shakespeare wrote about people, places, and situations that the Stratford man wouldn't have been personally familiar with, and then you can pick anyone else you like from the era that you think might match your profile better. This exact process has been used for Bacon, Derby, Oxford, and dozens of other claimants; nobody has offered a truly new argument against Shakespeare for decades. I recommend the book _Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?_ by James S. Shapiro as the definitive work examining, explaining, and debunking alternative authorship theories. It's thoughtful and well-written, not the dry diatribe one might expect.
  • bloak 3y ago
    At first I thought you were referring to _Who wrote Shakespeare?_ by John Michell, which I would recommend. They sound like very similar books. If anyone has read both recently, what are the main differences between them?