Two questions


Or maybe just one.
Who was William Shakespeare or rather who wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare?
A bonus question; since Dante’s time has the Satan’s CV been rewritten? Could we update it?

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

67 thoughts on “Two questions

  1. Mordanicus says:

    I belong to the group of people who think Shakespeare was simple Shakespeare, not someone else. Btw I really liked The Tempest, which I read last year.

    Like

    • Good for you. You are correct. Check out Joss Whedon’s “Much Ado About Nothing.” Hilarious! And an excellent example of what makes Shakespeare so much fun.

      Like

    • makagutu says:

      The question is was Shakespeare a pen name and if not where did this fellow hail from? I am not in any camp on this one. I simply don’t know

      Like

      • Mordanicus says:

        Well, it could be that W. Shakespeare was a pen name, but in general when people inquire the identity of WS they are connected to conspiracy theories that WS was not a real person. However, if someone wrote plays under the pen name of W. Shakespeare, it’s something different from the claim that WS did not exist at all. Similary I certainly do exist, though I use the pen name Mordanicus.

        In regard of the identity of the person who called him (or her) self Shakespeare quite little is known, except of his works.

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          I didn’t know there was a conspiracy on the existence of WS. My question is simply to identify the author of the works and that’s all.

          Like

        • Allallt says:

          There was an idea for a long time that W Shakespeare was a relatively poor person (as poor as you could be and still be educated).
          However, given his extensive knowledge of Italy, it is likely he went there. That is not something the relatively poor could do.
          Also “Shakespeare” was written in many different ways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelling_of_Shakespeare's_name) which would suggest more than one person contributing.
          There are a lot of theories based around the idea that the real William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon was not the author of the the works attributed to that name. They are called anti-stratfordian ideas. Personally, I don’t buy it.

          Like

          • You’re correct not too. I linked a video in the comments section here you’ll want to check out. The different spellings of names and words was universally common in Elizabeth’s time as there was NO SET ACCEPTED spelling for any English words, including names, until the Neoclassic period in the 18th century when writers established one. Marlowe’s name is written, by him, as Marly, Mar, Marlo, etc. Shakespeare’s existence is not questionable by anyone. What the conspiracy whack jobs question is his status as a god-like creature because only a god-like creature can write god-like plays of perfection and gospels. As well, it is in no way necessary for Shakespeare to have gone to Italy to write plays set in Italy any more than it was necessary for George Lucas to have gone to Tattooine to write Star Wars. They are geographic backgrounds for the story. Writers use their imaginations and place their characters in these places. The Merchant of Venice is not about Venice: It’s about the characters. Hamlet: Prince of Denmark is not about Denmark. It’s about Hamlet. Change the location to Tattooine, and the it effects nothing but the weather. Shakespeare made geographic errors in his works regarding Italian locations which show his knowledge of Italy came from classic literature he had read. In no way did he have to have gone to there, though he very well could have. Just because actors and writers of his time didn’t write in depth biographies about themselves doesn’t mean they didn’t have cool lives. Shakespeare was a man. Not a god. That is the inspiration for this whack job conspiracy. And as a regular guy who loves Shakespeare’s works, the disrespect it shows for human imagination really insults me and pisses me off.

            Like

            • Allallt says:

              There are theories that the actual author was Marlowe (meaning he’d faked his death by the time he used the pen name), Francis Bacon (meaning Shakespeare’s plays had a right-wing political agenda), Oxford (for some reason)… not necessarily a god.

              Like

              • There are 77 candidates who’ve been proposed. The basic premise of ALL of this is that Shakespeare could NOT possibly have written his works because he was not god-like, educated or smart enough to have done so. Marlowe was killed in a bar about 20 years before Shakespeare died. As I said before, there are some excellent books on this matter which clearly illustrate when, where, why, and who started the conspiracy around this. This is a conspiracy theory and an annoying one. You not knowing the Oxford case that well means you are not all that familiar with this silliness. Oxford is the current candidate who is favored by the conspiracy whack-jobs to be the author of these works. Shakespeare, the works, were elevated to a god-like biblical status after a few hundred years. There were people who actually had Sunday ceremonies to read pages from a play and reflect on them. In the minds of the elite snobby nosed prick, a normal guy could not have written these works. Normal people, non-university educated folks, simply could not have written something like these plays. This is insulting as it is stupid. Unfortunately, no one I suggest read the works I’ve suggested ever has. Odd, because opinions still flow like snot from a bacteria infested nose from them even though. This is my say and I’m finished. Giving credence to whack-job conspiracies is not OK, and this particular one pisses me off and insults those commoners who are talented yet somehow remain very human at the same time.

                Like

          • makagutu says:

            The anti-Stratfordians argue also that there are no records of Shakespeare of Stratford ever being a member or clerk of the bar while his knowledge of law seems to be excellent.

            Like

            • Allallt says:

              Well, thanks for asking the question. I am in the camp of the man of Stratford is also the author. He can be an autodidact who rubbed shoulders with the right people, had a passion for learning and was just good with stories.

              Like

              • Right. He wrote stories for the theater to be PLAYED. His concern was the same as Quintin Tarantino’s is today, to entertain people. You take what you can to build a story and back ground for your characters and let the characters play. In Elizabethan grammar school, students learned Greek, Latin, and recited The Ovid, and works of Homer from memory. This is where or term “Grammar” school comes from. An education like this would require a Master’s degree equivalent. I know you are not arguing against Shakespeare here, I’m just illustrating how very likely the man whose name his friends made sure was on his plays when they printed them is the man who wrote them.

                Like

            • The anti-Stratfordians are coming from a premise that Shakespeare could NOT have written what he did because common men are incapable of having the imagination to write such things. Give me the examples from Shakespeare’s plays that indicate his superb knowledge of Elizabethan law that an imaginative, bright, play writer couldn’t POSSIBLY know a little about without being a lawyer. Give specific quotes and explanations as to how it would be COMPLETELY impossibly, to the point of creating a massive cover-up of the identity of a theatrical play write, for an intuitively creative writer to have written those scenes. No play of Shakespeare’s is ABOUT the law. Laws come into play to effect the characters, as in “the Merchant of Venice”, but this conspiracy is ridiculous. I’ve read, studied, and performed Shakespeare for decades. This conspiracy is based solely on the insulting premise that no middle-class average guy could write Shakespeare. Bullshit.

              Like

      • Here’s a link for you to check out that will help clarify things for you: http://shakespeareauthorship.com/ I’m surprised The Oxfordians haven’t jumped all over me here, but I’m betting the a-theist aspect to our blogs is like a repellent to them, at least I hope so. They are more annoying than Christian evangelicals when it comes to saying things are true for which no evidence exists.

        Like

  2. john zande says:

    There’s doubt over Shakespeare?

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      There has been for a long time now I guess

      Like

    • fojap says:

      Yeah. Some people think that a lower middle class guy couldn’t be a great writer and he must have been an aristocrat. Basically, I’ve always assumed it’s a class based prejudice, although some surprising people seem to have subscribed to it.

      Christopher Marlowe’s father was a shoemaker and plenty of great people have come from the middling classes. I find nothing remarkable about it, myself. In fact, I would be tempted to argue that the lower middle class has been a greater source of innovative thinkers than the aristocracy, but I don’t have any good basis for that. Besides, I was raised lower middle class and I’m suspicious of my own biases. I confess to having a major chip on my shoulder towards aristocrats ever since I was nineteen and a guy who had gotten me pregnant said that I had to have an abortion because his family was aristocratic and they would never accept him having a child with a woman of my social class – and I’ll stop before I go on an incoherent tirade about the English.

      A lot of the Shakespeare stuff sounds like conspiracy theories to me – coded lines in the Sonnets, who is the dark lady and the young gentleman and so on.

      Of course, I rarely care about biographies anyway and tend to be more interested in the work itself, so whether or not Shakespeare was a commoner or an aristocrat to me is the least interesting thing about him.

      Like

      • Exactly. It’s the writings that matter. However, making shit up and filling people’s heads with conspiracy bullshit, watch “Anonymous” to see what I mean, is not acceptable. To say the only person for which evidence existing indicting he wrote these works is ABSOLUTELY NOT the guy who did, and then to postulate the bullshit, ludicrous nonsense presented in the Oxford case is insulting to my intelligence and akin to 9/11 conspiracy shit. It isn’t hard to check what’s been written and said on this matter.

        Like

        • fojap says:

          My main knowledge of the argument comes from a 1999 article in Harper’s. After reading that, I have pretty much felt at ease ignoring everything else about it since. Frankly, it just strikes me as silly.

          Have you ever read Foucault’s Pendulum? I like to think of it as the Da Vinci Code for smart people. I like that fact that they just make up a conspiracy theory as a sort of joke and other people believe.

          Now, if we can only get people to give up the Vermeer bs. I’m dreading that movie that’s coming out because for the next year that’s will be the only think anyone will say to me. Does anyone have an idea of what an artist’s training was like in the past. No one gets anything resembling training like that today.

          Like

          • I wrote my Master’s thesis on Hamlet, and for all the years I’ve enjoyed Shakespeare, no one gave a squirt of pee to this conspiracy who had any credibility about them. The “Anonymous” movie a few years ago stirred up controversy as a way to sell tickets, and it is that that got the Scholarly Shakespeare folks to finally say, “It matters that the truth be known.” Any way, the movie bombed at the box office because really, who fucking cares? It’s not a bad film, but when I discovered it fully presented the Oxford case as they wish it known, my jaw dropped. It’s an absolutely ridiculously impossible premise. Totally made up. Check it out.

            Like

            • fojap says:

              I’ve read Hamlet a couple of times and seen the major movie productions, so I don’t know it especially well.

              I was cast as Juliet in high school but the drama teacher was fired for being too high brow and the play never came off. (Gilbert and Sullivan instead -ick!) I tried directing a production of a Midsummer’s Night Dream. My actors mutinied. What a mess. That didn’t come off either. In a directing class I worked on Lear (played Cordelia) and the Scottish Play (playing you know who). I was really happy about you know who because the teacher later said that he would have never cast me in the role because I was playing against type, but I had convinced him. Just between you and me, I’m not as sweet as I look. Cordelia’s a great role, but it’s the kind of role I always used to get when I was young, so it wasn’t as much fun. Juliet’s fun. I memorized all the lines and had started working on it. I really wish it had come off. That was a real disappointment for me.

              Yeah, but those would be the plays I know in depth. Romeo and Juliet, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Lear and the one you can’t name if you’re superstitious. I’m not in the least bit superstitious, but it so upsets some people that I go along with the rule anyway.

              I’ve read many others and seen quite a few productions, but there’s a difference between letting yourself be entertained and really working on it.

              I never worked on Shakespeare in a literature class, as it happens. All actors work on Shakespeare in a way all literature majors don’t.

              Like

              • Oh, I LOVE Hamlet! The others too, but Hamlet is my favorite. I can quote that baby all over the place. I HATED Shakespeare in high school were it was presented like Scripture. But when I started acting, and I finally GOT it, god damn! I love Mr. Shakespeare! Actors love him cause he wrote shit that chews up scenery and is awesome to perform. This was written by an actor for actors. check out Joss Whedon’s ” Much Ado About Nothing. Excellent. Funny as hell too. “The readiness is all.”

                Like

                • fojap says:

                  By and for actors – that really sums it up in my mind. Fortunately, most of my exposure to Shakespeare came through the theatre, not through high school English classes, so I never had to relearn it.

                  Hamlet was the first play I read. I just got it out of the library. I don’t mean to imply that I don’t like Hamlet, I just never worked on it.

                  Probably my favorite would be Othello. I can quote entire speeches by Iago and I’ve never worked on that one either.

                  Like

  3. There isn’t. Not by anyone who has a functioning brain. There was collaboration during the Elizabethan period that is akin to modern day screen plays, but Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to him. He collaborated on the Henry 6 plays, Titus Andronicus, with another writer whose name slips my mind at the moment, but those plays are weak in comparision to “Hamlet, “King Lear”, “Henry 5”, etc.. The authorship bullshit started about 200-250 years after Shakespeare’s death, after a few idiots pretty much deified him. In other words, some people began to believe that the son of a glove maker and an actor could not have written plays so divinely perfect only a god or elite, noble man could have written them. Nonsense. Elitist nonsense. There is a wonderful book by one of the best Shakespeare scholars today, James Shapiro, a Columbia University English Professor, called “Contested Will” that I insist anyone asking this question read before I will discuss this topic further. My second request before discussing it is that the person asking the question has read at least 10 of Shakespeare’s plays, or can at least, from quick memory, tell me the names of 5 of his history plays. No one these days who learns I’ve studied Shakespeare for decades, wrote my Master’s Thesis on “Hamlet”, and acted in many plays ever asks me the most important question anyone can ask me about Shakespeare’s works: Why? Why do you love them so much. Instead, this question gets asks by people because our conspiracy obsessed society loves to create conspiracies. The movie “Anonymous” which came out 2 or 3 years ago was about this topic. It bombed horribly at the box office. Because it was utterly ludicrous and boring on top of that. Shakespeare was an actor, a pay write, a VERY successful part owner of his theater company of 25 years, and wonderfully talented. What he was not was God. And that is at the root of this nonsense.

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      You are of the position, I presume, that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays or do I misunderstand you?

      Like

      • I’m of the position that too many people ask this question without having an appreciation for what makes the works of Shakespeare great. There is considerable academic research on this that also isn’t looked over by people asking this question. The question is mute to me unless the person asking it has studied Elizabethan literature and Shakespeare’s works. That said, yes, I see no reason not to believe Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to him. He collaborated on some, the earliest and later ones, as was common during the period, but the nonsense about the Duke of Oxford being Queen Elizabeth’s son, AND incestuous lover, AND father to several children with her AND the “true” author of the works is insulting to my intelligence. There are 77 candidates who people claim are the “real” Shakespeare. There is evidence for only one person having written what is attributed to Shakespeare and that is Shakespeare. The “King’s Man” who’s fucking name is written on the plays printed by his friends from a theater company which had a high level of success. Queen Elizabeth and King James after were fond of Shakespeare. The current climate of conspiracy theories projected as truth minus evidence is great for shit like this. Like religion, conspiracy theories require nothing but belief to be true. I’m very tired of nonsense getting attention. The book i mentioned on this matter answers this question excellently for those who are interested in taking the time to find out why this question came about. Another excellent book on this and on how literature of the period is studied and analyzed is “Shakespeare: Beyond Doubt.” It’s a book of essays on the topic edited by Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells. This question wasn’t asked until Shakespeare became elevated to god status about 250 years after his death. To people believing only a god could write these plays, the idea of a common human writing them is impossible. To a person like me, who demands solid, tangible evidence and does not believe in magic gods, the Shakespeare authorship question is an assault on my intelligence and on the name of damn good play write named William Shakespeare. Hell, maybe Big Foot wrote Tennessee Williams plays? Why not.

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          Interesting. I will read the books you suggested later in the year.

          Like

          • You’ll like Shapiro’s. It is easy to read, informative, and you do not need to be an expert on Shakespeare to understand what it’s about. In it, you’ll see how a man who was talented, successful, and well-liked in his day for being a good play write is transformed into what some people want him to be: a god-like artist no regular human could compare with. Shakespeare was just a man. A guy who loved to act and perform and wrote some ass-kicking plays that illustrate this. He just did it better and on a more intuitive level than anyone else ever has.

            Like

        • fojap says:

          I’m glad you brought up the resurrection of Shakespeare’s reputation. (I do happen to love Shakespeare, btw.)

          Like

        • fojap says:

          I think another thing that might be worthwhile to think about in this context is the rise of Romanticism and the Romantic conception of the artist. If I recall some of the complaints I’ve heard from people who think the guy from Stratford couldn’t have been the true writer of the plays, one thing is that he seems so mundane. Well, before we have the Romantic conception of the artist as this tortured, inspired soul, somehow apart from the rest of humanity, members of a “natural aristocracy of talent” to borrow Jefferson’s phrase, artists were people with a job to do. If some were tortured like Michelangelo, so much the worse for them, but many just worked hard to do a job well.

          Like

          • You are dead on right about this. 100% dead on right. Shapiro goes into great detail on this and on the first book written in support of Oxford because of this. Sigmund Freud convinced he was able to say Oxford was Shakespeare through the analyses of the plays. Very idiotic thinking on Freud’s part. And wrong.

            Like

          • Indeed, from the records we have of Shakespeare’s transactions, he was a very successful BUSINESS man who, along with the other members of his company, made a lot of money doing their job: acting in plays.

            Like

    • fojap says:

      Are you thinking of “Pericles, Prince of Tyre,” perhaps? That one’s pretty weak.

      What did you think of The Invention of the Human by Harold Bloom? Personally, I think he overstates the case and underestimates the influence of the emerging novel form.

      Like

      • As far as I know, Pericles isn’t one of the plays scholars have concluded was collaborated on with another writer. Check it out online. The method they use to determine a writer’s “footprint” stylistically, is really cool, but painstakingly difficult and tedious. The dude Shakespeare wrote “Titus Andronicus” with is George Peele, and Thomas Middleton and Will collaborated on plays. There’s one about Thomas Moore that was never performed, due to censors not approving it, which scholars feel gives a speech written in Shakespeare’s own hand writing. Look that up too. It’s cool. The Bloom book was full of Bloom. He’s an entertaining writer, but way too full of religious-like devotion of Shakespeare. He claims in it that “King Lear” is so excellent on the page, it should NEVER be performed as performing it degrades it somehow. Fuck that! Shakespeare was an actor who wrote plays to be performed. Not whacked off to in the privacy of your home just being read. Plays were NOT EVEN considered literature til some years after Shakespeare’s death. A play was written to be played. If you read Bloom’s book, read “Contested Will” by Shapiro. It’ll answer more questions than you thought existed about this issue. Sigmund Freud, Sir Derrick Jacobi, and others are and were Oxfordians. You’ll see why if you read Shapiro’s book, which, btw, doesn’t attack and bash anyone. It explains where, how, and why this shit got started. There is absolutely 0 evidence for anyone other than Shakespeare writing his works, 0%. As a lower class dude who’s pedigree is to be an alcoholic, dumb-ass, white-trash, wife/child beating ape, I deeply resent assholes who were born with a golden cock in their mouths telling me Shakespeare wasn’t smart enough to write his stuff. He had imagination and used it. I use mine to see through bullshit like religion and crazy-ass conspiracies, and have had enough of idiots dictating to me what the “poor” can and can not do or be. An actor and play write in Elizabethan theater WAS NOT THAT FUCKING IMPORTANT!!! Saying Shakespeare didn’t write his own plays is like saying Quintin Tarantino didn’t really direct his own movies and write them cause he didn’t go to college and isn’t smart enough to have done it. Therefor, it must be Ingmar Bergman who is the true Tarantino, even though he’s dead now. Idiotic shit.

        Like

        • fojap says:

          I don’t know if Wikipedia is a reliable source, but:

          Pericles, Prince of Tyre is.. written at least in part by William Shakespeare…. Whilst various arguments support that Shakespeare is the sole author of the play (notably DelVecchio and Hammond’s Cambridge edition of the play), modern editors generally agree that Shakespeare is responsible for almost exactly half the play…. Modern textual studies indicate that the first two acts of 835 lines detailing the many voyages of Pericles were written by a mediocre collaborator, which strong evidence suggests to have been the victualler, pander, dramatist and pamphleteer George Wilkins.

          Blooms contention that Shakespeare should be read and not seen strikes me as too stupid to even begin to engage with it. I do have to say, that I may have been very fortunately in living near a university, I saw several student productions when I was in high school, and can recall a fabulous Iago played by Christopher Plummer on Broadway and James Earl Jones as Othello. Whoever played Desdemona was just dreadful, I’m afraid. Thirty years later and I can still remember how bad she was.

          Anyhoo, I stage managed Pericles which is why I may be the only person on earth who knows that damn play well.

          Like

          • Thanks for that info. It’s so cool that they’ve discovered this collaboration part of Shakespeare’s works. This is what comes from serious scholarly work and not idiotic postulating based on idiotic faith based self-aggrandizing conspiracies. Odd however, that everyone he collaborated on kinda sucks in comparison to the ones he solo authored, like “Hamlet”, and “Lear”. I’ve played Bottom, The Ghost in Hamlet, The Grave Digger in Hamlet, Dogberry in Much Ado, and Oberon in Midsummer Night’s Dream. I desperately want to play Falstaff, now that I’m old enough and fat enough to play him. I read Hamlet and Richard 3 excellently, IMO, but am not ever going to be playing those characters in a production. A badly given Shakespeare performance is painful to watch. It’s like listening to Russell Crowe sing. Ouch. Sticks with you for all the wrong reasons. I meet Ken Branagh and Emma Thompson when they were in Chicago in , I think ’89 or ’90, doing Midsummer and Lear in repertoire at a local Chicago theater. Cool.

            Like

            • fojap says:

              Bad is bad, but I don’t mind workman-like productions. Unlike Bloom, I think Shakespeare is meant to be staged and I’d actually prefer a competent, but not great, production to reading it. When I was in London I went to the rebuilt Globe and saw Two Gentlemen of Verona. It wasn’t going to set the theatre world on fire, but it was enjoyable nonetheless.

              Falstaff, wow. Hell, I’d like to play Falstaff.

              If you’re not getting the picture, I used to hang around the theatre freaks in high school. At first I was interested in the behind the scene things. (I actually think I’m a damned good stage manager, which is weird because my own life is a disorganized mess.) Then I got persuaded to try going on stage. I haven’t been involved in theatrical anything for ages, however.

              Like

              • Of course Shakespeare wrote plays to be staged. No other reason existed for them to be written down. Bloom is an ass. I’ve not done anything in ages either. Life got in the way. I’d sure love to though. I most certainly can tell you’re a theater person from the way you write about this stuff.

                Like

                • fojap says:

                  The only union I ever belonged to was IATSE. I think it was Local 1, but it was so long ago, I’m not sure. I didn’t do anything impressive myself during that time, but I did belong.

                  Like

                  • I belonged to a theater company called, “The Generic Theater Co.” Original, eh? A few guys in it were Equity so they used fake names when we did shows so they wouldn’t get fined for doing non-union shows. No one would’ve noticed though, I’m sure. Oh, I did do the “Fantasists” with Steve Carroll of “The Office” fame, though. It was in the late 80’s when he first came to Chicago before hooking up with Second City. Cool guy. Wished I would have stayed in touch. Come to think of it, a lot of good actors came through our company.

                    Like

  4. BTW, this was a good question to be brought up here, Mak, by a skeptical atheist such as yourself. The nature of the Shakespeare authorship nonsense shows what little use too many people have for critical thinking. Thanks for asking it here.

    Like

  5. Ron says:

    What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
    By any other name would smell as sweet

    Checkmate, aShakespeareist!

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      Am campless on this one but I would like to hear what the Shakespeareists have as evidence

      Like

    • True. The works of Shakespeare do not lose or gain their merit for me on whose name goes on them. And Elizabethan theater wasn’t like Hollywood today with tons of press on play writers and actors lives being written about. Shakespeare didn’t write beautiful love notes describing himself, none that survived anyway. But we have nothing like this from any actor or play write of the time. Marlowe’s name was never put printed on one of his plays til after he was dead many years. Shakespeare’s was printed on several while he lived, bought theaters, was praised by Kings and Queens, and enjoyed. what I find distasteful about conspiracies like this is they are an insult to the regular man. This conspiracy in particular is a denial of humanness. It says a regular human can not have the imagination to write such great stuff, only a god-like being can do this. Bullshit. And by all means, I am not married to Shakespeare or base my opinions on the plays on who wrote them. So, if the guy who’s name is on them, who NO ONE questioned for centuries CAN’T be the writer, then provide evidence as to 1. Why a frigging actor and play write is SO important that numerous people felt it necessary to lie about him during Queen Elizabeth’s reign, when, there were much more important things to worry about than nonsense about play writing, and 2. Evidence as to who wrote them. The Oxford idiocy is insulting to me. It proposes that a guy who died ten years before Shakespeare did, a period during which several more plays were written, wrote “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” at age 8 or 9, NO F’in’ way that happened, was Queen Elizabeth’s son and incestuous lover, AND father to several of her children which she DID NOT have, is the real author of the plays of Shakespeare. Absolutely ridiculous, insultingly stupid bullshit. I hate religion for the same reason I hate this sort of shit. ANYTHING people say is true, IS just because they say it. Any way, remember who the only infallible person to ever live is: ME.

      Like

  6. […] Makagutu’s post there is a fun question: who is William Shakespeare? The question doesn’t seem interesting until you note it is an allusion to the idea that William […]

    Like

  7. Jackie says:

    “A bonus question; since Dante’s time has the Satan’s CV been rewritten? Could we update it?”

    There are two books I highly recommend if you’re not familiar with them already – “GOD The Ultimate Autobiography” and “SATAN The Hiss and Tell Memoirs” by Jeremy Pascall. Both books are hysterical! They were both written in late 80’s so they can be hard to find. If you are not opposed to ordering via Amazon they have them used for about $1.00 maybe a little more not including shipping. 🙂

    Like

  8. fojap says:

    Well, well, well, it seems that your followers are overwhelmingly “Stratfordians,” or as I like to think of us, normal people.

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      Indeed they are.

      Like

      • I’m shocked the Oxfordian hit squad hasn’t sniffed out this thread yet. Man, they’re like Christians bashing a-theists on this issue. All I can think is that the a-theism scares ’em off. Shame. You’d get the full flavor of their idiocy if they jumped in.

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          I would hope they would comment or are they scared this is an atheist site?

          Like

          • I think the a-theist site stuff either is keeping them from commenting, or they just never look at such sites. They don’t care much for logic and facts. Don’t read Shakespeare, SEE it. check out “Much Ado About Nothing” the version Joss Whedon did last year. You’ll like it. It should be available where you are.

            Like

          • Oh, and be sure to see “Anonymous”. That film presents the Oxfordian case in full. It’s pretty good to. Just lacks humor. Once I realized they weren’t joking about the crazy ass impossible shit in it, I fell in love with it for it’s proof of just how nuts these people are.

            Like

  9. Here’s a good free pdf book download called “Shakespeare Bites Back” that is a good read. http://bloggingshakespeare.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Shakespeare_Bites_Back_Book.pdf

    Like

  10. themodernidiot says:

    I finally get a chance to catch some of everyone’s blogs, and I stumble onto this little nugget lol. He was real, that was his real name as well as his daddy’s. Evidence of his existence is slathered all over England. And they would know.

    Like

  11. themodernidiot says:

    As far as satan’s cv, since his only employer is god, and to accept the existence of satan equals god is real, is that an admission you want to make? 😉

    Like

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s