History Creator / WilliamShakespeare

10th Jul '17 2:15:20 PM pyroclastic
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* PurpleProse: Sonnet 130 ("My mistress's eyes are nothing like the sun") satirizes the tendency of other poets to make overwrought, faux-profound similes.

to:

* PurpleProse: Sonnet 130 ("My mistress's mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun") satirizes the tendency of other poets to make overwrought, faux-profound similes.
25th Jun '17 2:00:14 AM spydre
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* PainfulRhyme: Some of his poems and plays may ''appear'' to employ this, but most are likely due to the fact that English pronunciation has changed markedly in 400 years, and they would have rhymed perfectly well when he wrote them.
22nd Jun '17 7:07:31 PM gemmabeta2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* RealitySubtext: Some scholars have theorized about the dynamic of Shakespeare's company via reading the plays to explain some of some of plays' quirks. For example, Shakespeare is assumed to have fallen out with Will Kempe, the company clown, for his constant improvisations and audience-mugging, due to Falstaff (one of his most famous roles) dying offstage in ''Theatre/HenryV'' and due to the diatribe against ad-libbing clowns in ''Hamlet''[[note]](though in this scene Hamlet wants the players to understand how dangerous it would be to ad-lib during Hamlet's rewrite of the play)[[/note]] Shakespeare's bad experiences with Kempe probably explains why he hired Robert Armin, who plays a more subdued and intelligent SadClown-type character (his most famous role probably being Feste from ''Theatre/TwelfthNight''). Shakespeare wrote ''Hamlet'' with Richard Burbage in mind, which would explain why the character is middle aged when the original character was a teenager. The difficulty in procuring boy actors who can carry a leading lady's role and how short their careers are could probably explain why all the plays with more than one major female role seem to be written back-to-back, to squeeze as much work as he can out of them: ''Theatre/TheComedyOfErrors'', ''Theatre/LovesLaboursLost'', ''Theatre/AMidsummerNightsDream'', ''Theatre/TheMerryWivesOfWindsor'', and ''Theatre/TheMerchantOfVenice'' were all written in the same three years.

to:

* RealitySubtext: Some scholars have theorized about the dynamic of Shakespeare's company via reading the plays to explain some of some of plays' quirks. For example, Shakespeare is assumed to have fallen out with Will Kempe, the company clown, for his constant improvisations and audience-mugging, due to Falstaff (one of his most famous roles) dying offstage in ''Theatre/HenryV'' and due to the diatribe against ad-libbing clowns in ''Hamlet''[[note]](though in this scene Hamlet wants the players to understand how dangerous it would be to ad-lib during Hamlet's rewrite of the play)[[/note]] play)[[/note]]. It is known from historical records that Kemp, an otherwise high-ranking stakeholder in Shakespeare's Company, suddenly left for some reason. Shakespeare's bad experiences with Kempe probably explains why he hired Robert Armin, who plays a more subdued and intelligent SadClown-type character (his most famous role probably being Feste from ''Theatre/TwelfthNight''). Shakespeare wrote ''Hamlet'' with Richard Burbage in mind, which would explain why the character is middle aged when the original character was a teenager. The difficulty in procuring boy actors who can carry a leading lady's role and how short their careers are could probably explain why all the plays with more than one major female role seem to be written back-to-back, to squeeze as much work as he can out of them: ''Theatre/TheComedyOfErrors'', ''Theatre/LovesLaboursLost'', ''Theatre/AMidsummerNightsDream'', ''Theatre/TheMerryWivesOfWindsor'', and ''Theatre/TheMerchantOfVenice'' were all written in the same three years.
16th Jun '17 7:22:13 PM qindarka
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* ''Sir Thomas More''
10th Jun '17 9:21:17 PM ImperialMajestyXO
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Every generation seems to see Shakespeare as one of theirs, and attribute to him whatever attitudes or beliefs are considered "proper", "cool", or "intelligent" at the time. The Georgians saw him as a natural man whose brilliance was completely innate, though not brought into line with proper rules of Aristotelian drama, while the Victorians and Edwardians saw him as a proper Whig gentleman with proper Whig opinions on women, foreigners, war, etc. Most notably, in the past thirty years he's been turned into a rebel who was "forced" to work for those nasty royals and aristocrats because he had no other choice. Even on this very wiki, Shakespeare is said to have "had" to write his plays in a certain way for James or Elizabeth or Essex, with the unspoken assumption that he would have done things very differently had those evil meddling Kings, Queens, and Dukes not been controlling and censoring him. Admittedly, the nobility did have the power to do just that to anyone less in rank than they were [[note]](''especially to a commoner''; even the Authorship Question doesn't help here, none of the nobles on the list outranked Queen Elizabeth/King James)[[/note]], such as [[UsefulNotes/ElizabethTheFirst Queen Elizabeth I]] chopping off the right hands of a writer, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stubbs John Stubbs]][[note]] ([[IAmNotLeftHanded he kept writing]], though never anything seditious again)[[/note]], his printer, and his publisher, William Page, for writings she found offensive to her. Shakespeare's plays were staged frequently for the upper crust, so they were a crowd he desired to impress.

to:

Every generation seems to see Shakespeare as one of theirs, and attribute to him whatever attitudes or beliefs are considered "proper", "cool", or "intelligent" at the time. The Georgians saw him as a natural man whose brilliance was completely innate, though not brought into line with proper rules of Aristotelian drama, while the Victorians and Edwardians saw him as a proper Whig gentleman with proper Whig opinions on women, foreigners, war, etc. Most notably, in the past thirty years he's been turned into a rebel who was "forced" to work for those nasty royals and aristocrats because he had no other choice. Even on this very wiki, Shakespeare is said to have "had" to write his plays in a certain way for James or Elizabeth or Essex, with the unspoken assumption that he would have done things very differently had those evil meddling Kings, Queens, and Dukes not been controlling and censoring him. Admittedly, the nobility did have the power to do just that to anyone less in rank than they were [[note]](''especially to a commoner''; even the Authorship Question doesn't help here, none of the nobles on the list outranked Queen Elizabeth/King James)[[/note]], such as [[UsefulNotes/ElizabethTheFirst [[UsefulNotes/ElizabethI Queen Elizabeth I]] chopping off the right hands of a writer, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stubbs John Stubbs]][[note]] ([[IAmNotLeftHanded he kept writing]], though never anything seditious again)[[/note]], his printer, and his publisher, William Page, for writings she found offensive to her. Shakespeare's plays were staged frequently for the upper crust, so they were a crowd he desired to impress.
10th Jun '17 9:21:03 PM ImperialMajestyXO
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Every generation seems to see Shakespeare as one of theirs, and attribute to him whatever attitudes or beliefs are considered "proper", "cool", or "intelligent" at the time. The Georgians saw him as a natural man whose brilliance was completely innate, though not brought into line with proper rules of Aristotelian drama, while the Victorians and Edwardians saw him as a proper Whig gentleman with proper Whig opinions on women, foreigners, war, etc. Most notably, in the past thirty years he's been turned into a rebel who was "forced" to work for those nasty royals and aristocrats because he had no other choice. Even on this very wiki, Shakespeare is said to have "had" to write his plays in a certain way for James or Elizabeth or Essex, with the unspoken assumption that he would have done things very differently had those evil meddling Kings, Queens, and Dukes not been controlling and censoring him. Admittedly, the nobility did have the power to do just that to anyone less in rank than they were [[note]](''especially to a commoner''; even the Authorship Question doesn't help here, none of the nobles on the list outranked Queen Elizabeth/King James)[[/note]], such as [[UsefulNotes/TheVirginQueen Queen Elizabeth I]] chopping off the right hands of a writer, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stubbs John Stubbs]][[note]] ([[IAmNotLeftHanded he kept writing]], though never anything seditious again)[[/note]], his printer, and his publisher, William Page, for writings she found offensive to her. Shakespeare's plays were staged frequently for the upper crust, so they were a crowd he desired to impress.

to:

Every generation seems to see Shakespeare as one of theirs, and attribute to him whatever attitudes or beliefs are considered "proper", "cool", or "intelligent" at the time. The Georgians saw him as a natural man whose brilliance was completely innate, though not brought into line with proper rules of Aristotelian drama, while the Victorians and Edwardians saw him as a proper Whig gentleman with proper Whig opinions on women, foreigners, war, etc. Most notably, in the past thirty years he's been turned into a rebel who was "forced" to work for those nasty royals and aristocrats because he had no other choice. Even on this very wiki, Shakespeare is said to have "had" to write his plays in a certain way for James or Elizabeth or Essex, with the unspoken assumption that he would have done things very differently had those evil meddling Kings, Queens, and Dukes not been controlling and censoring him. Admittedly, the nobility did have the power to do just that to anyone less in rank than they were [[note]](''especially to a commoner''; even the Authorship Question doesn't help here, none of the nobles on the list outranked Queen Elizabeth/King James)[[/note]], such as [[UsefulNotes/TheVirginQueen [[UsefulNotes/ElizabethTheFirst Queen Elizabeth I]] chopping off the right hands of a writer, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stubbs John Stubbs]][[note]] ([[IAmNotLeftHanded he kept writing]], though never anything seditious again)[[/note]], his printer, and his publisher, William Page, for writings she found offensive to her. Shakespeare's plays were staged frequently for the upper crust, so they were a crowd he desired to impress.
10th Jun '17 9:20:41 PM ImperialMajestyXO
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Every generation seems to see Shakespeare as one of theirs, and attribute to him whatever attitudes or beliefs are considered "proper", "cool", or "intelligent" at the time. The Georgians saw him as a natural man whose brilliance was completely innate, though not brought into line with proper rules of Aristotelian drama, while the Victorians and Edwardians saw him as a proper Whig gentleman with proper Whig opinions on women, foreigners, war, etc. Most notably, in the past thirty years he's been turned into a rebel who was "forced" to work for those nasty royals and aristocrats because he had no other choice. Even on this very wiki, Shakespeare is said to have "had" to write his plays in a certain way for James or Elizabeth or Essex, with the unspoken assumption that he would have done things very differently had those evil meddling Kings, Queens, and Dukes not been controlling and censoring him. Admittedly, the nobility did have the power to do just that to anyone less in rank than they were [[note]](''especially to a commoner''; even the Authorship Question doesn't help here, none of the nobles on the list outranked Queen Elizabeth/King James)[[/note]], such as Queen Elizabeth I chopping off the right hands of a writer, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stubbs John Stubbs]][[note]] ([[IAmNotLeftHanded he kept writing]], though never anything seditious again)[[/note]], his printer, and his publisher, William Page, for writings she found offensive to her. Shakespeare's plays were staged frequently for the upper crust, so they were a crowd he desired to impress.

to:

Every generation seems to see Shakespeare as one of theirs, and attribute to him whatever attitudes or beliefs are considered "proper", "cool", or "intelligent" at the time. The Georgians saw him as a natural man whose brilliance was completely innate, though not brought into line with proper rules of Aristotelian drama, while the Victorians and Edwardians saw him as a proper Whig gentleman with proper Whig opinions on women, foreigners, war, etc. Most notably, in the past thirty years he's been turned into a rebel who was "forced" to work for those nasty royals and aristocrats because he had no other choice. Even on this very wiki, Shakespeare is said to have "had" to write his plays in a certain way for James or Elizabeth or Essex, with the unspoken assumption that he would have done things very differently had those evil meddling Kings, Queens, and Dukes not been controlling and censoring him. Admittedly, the nobility did have the power to do just that to anyone less in rank than they were [[note]](''especially to a commoner''; even the Authorship Question doesn't help here, none of the nobles on the list outranked Queen Elizabeth/King James)[[/note]], such as [[UsefulNotes/TheVirginQueen Queen Elizabeth I I]] chopping off the right hands of a writer, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stubbs John Stubbs]][[note]] ([[IAmNotLeftHanded he kept writing]], though never anything seditious again)[[/note]], his printer, and his publisher, William Page, for writings she found offensive to her. Shakespeare's plays were staged frequently for the upper crust, so they were a crowd he desired to impress.
8th May '17 11:13:33 AM vifetoile
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Most of the anti-Stratfordians come from the position that, since there are no records of William Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon having received any education at all[[note]] (as an English citizen, Shakespeare would have been entitled to a free place at the King's New School in Stratford, though there are no records of this then again, ''no'' school records from that era have survived)[[/note]] and as Shakespeare's only handwriting samples include six signatures[[note]] (Shakespeare dictated his will, as was common at the time; and spelled his name several different ways, though spelling was still in a state of flux at the time)[[/note]]; therefore the successful Stratford businessman[[note]] (at a time when literacy was not a requirement to be a successful businessman)[[/note]] could not have been well-versed with poetry, history, mythology, law, medicine, geography, sailing, and the upper echelons of politics to write so well about these subjects. Hence the alternative authors proposed by anti-Stratfordians are generally highly-connected members of the government, lifelong academics, or commoners with documented ties to noblemen, such as Christopher Marlowe, Francis Bacon, Edward De Vere (the 17th Earl of Oxford), or William Stanley (the Earl of Derby). (Some Stratfordians suggest that the discrepancy between Shakespeare the artist and Shakespeare the business man could be explained by the possibility that Anne Hathaway, his ''wife'' back in Stratford, was the real business head of the family, and conducted Will's financial affairs in his name.)

to:

Most of the anti-Stratfordians come from the position that, since there are no records of William Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon having received any education at all[[note]] (as an English citizen, Shakespeare would have been entitled to a free place at the King's New School in Stratford, though there are no records of this then again, ''no'' school records from that era have survived)[[/note]] and as Shakespeare's only handwriting samples include six signatures[[note]] (Shakespeare dictated his will, as was common at the time; and spelled his name several different ways, though spelling was still in a state of flux at the time)[[/note]]; therefore the successful Stratford businessman[[note]] (at a time when literacy was not a requirement to be a successful businessman)[[/note]] could not have been well-versed with poetry, history, mythology, law, medicine, geography, sailing, and the upper echelons of politics to write so well about these subjects. Hence the alternative authors proposed by anti-Stratfordians are generally highly-connected members of the government, lifelong academics, or commoners with documented ties to noblemen, such as Christopher Marlowe, Francis Bacon, Edward De Vere (the 17th Earl of Oxford), Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke, or William Stanley (the Earl of Derby). (Some Stratfordians suggest that the discrepancy between Shakespeare the artist and Shakespeare the business man could be explained by the possibility that Anne Hathaway, his ''wife'' back in Stratford, was the real business head of the family, and conducted Will's financial affairs in his name.)
21st Mar '17 2:36:18 AM Az_Tech341
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* AntiquatedLinguistics: While much his wording was modern at the time, Shakespeare does engage in a few instances of this. For example, in ''Romeo and Juliet'', Paris' "on Thursday early will I rouse '''''ye'''''" would already have been archaic. Of course today, almost all of what Shakespeare wrote falls under this.

to:

* AntiquatedLinguistics: While much of his wording was modern at the time, Shakespeare does engage in a few instances of this. For example, in ''Romeo and Juliet'', Paris' "on Thursday early will I rouse '''''ye'''''" would already have been archaic. Of course today, almost all of what Shakespeare wrote falls under this.
20th Mar '17 11:17:56 PM MisterDrBob2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* AntiquatedLinguistics: While his wording was modern at the time, modern use of it falls under such.

to:

* AntiquatedLinguistics: While much his wording was modern at the time, modern use Shakespeare does engage in a few instances of it this. For example, in ''Romeo and Juliet'', Paris' "on Thursday early will I rouse '''''ye'''''" would already have been archaic. Of course today, almost all of what Shakespeare wrote falls under such.this.
This list shows the last 10 events of 231. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Creator.WilliamShakespeare