Was Shakespeare, Shakespeare?

[gategrrl]

Or was he Christopher Marlowe? Is this just an issue to keep Shakespearean Scholars employed? Is this a matter of literary life and death? Is this like the pursuit of the Loch Ness Monster, or the Sasquatch or Big Foot? Was Christopher Marlowe really a spy whose death was faked, and once faked, he continued writing under William Shakespeare's name?

Or in the end, does it really matter who wrote these plays with some of the largest working vocabulary and metaphors in them than anyone else has written? (that I know of: I'm not a scholar) Personally, I think it's like claiming that aliens were responsible for the building of the pyramids the world over, and all technological advances in the Ancient world. Just because a huge number of plays were written that *we* consider pure gold, doesn't mean that it was not that one person who wrote them! Unless, of course, Shakespeare was a pseudonym for a group of writer/producers, like "The Boys at Bridge" or something like that, and then streamlined under one writer (like Roddenberry did on Star Trek, and infinitely better show, in the end, it can be argued).

What do YOU think?

Comments

[aostara.livejournal.com]

No clue. My personal belief is that Shakespeare existed and was a playwrite and most likely had a bit of brilliance of his own, but also most likely bought/borrowed/stole brilliant ideas from other folks who did not get famous.

Interesting coincidence - just yesterday I saw "Shakespeare in Love" for the first time... as well as the Shakespeare episode from Season 3 of Dr. Who. Those two fictional sources have probably biases the above opinion, although I pretty much already thought it.