#Oxfordian

[shakespearenews]

Twelfth Night. I was a very dull Fabian, who has some of the worst jokes not only in Shakespeare but in dramatic history.

Hugh Grant 

#shakespeare #william shakespeare #hugh grant #twelfth night #fabian #oxfordian #educational theater

[christofpierson]

It's Willfully Stupid to Pretend the Shakespeare Authorship Question Is Resolved

More than meets the eye? In response to the recent publication of Elizabeth Winkler’s lively and thought-provoking Shakespeare Is a Woman and Other Heresies, which is, among other things, a powerful book-length argument for academic freedom in English departments, Slate.com published a review by staff writer Isaac Butler labeling Winkler’s book “Shakespeare Trutherism” and urging a supposedly…

View On WordPress

#17th Earl of Oxford #Alexander Waugh #DeVere Society #Edward de Vere #Elizabeth Winkler #English literature #Isaac Butler #Katherine Chiljan #Oxfordian #Roger Stritmatter #Ros Barber #Shakespeare Authorship #Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship #Stanley Wells #Stratford-upon-Avon #Stratfordian

[cinemaocd]

If I had one question for Mark Rylance in 2024 it would be: I know you aren't personally vaccinated because viruses don't affect the fae folk the same way they do the humans, but would you ever get vaccinated for a part? Have you asked yourself what would dr. semmelweiss do in this situation?

#recent article implied that mark rylance is an anti-vaxxer and it's like he's anti-vax and oxfordian and shills for PETA #he is out here collecting deplorable trophies he is going to put them in his faerie hideout in the Hall of Human Stupidity or something...

[serialreblogger]

Spelling was not standardized in Shakespeare's England

yes this is my point. william "sex jokes" "historical RPF" shakespeare is broadly upheld as the pinnacle of english literature, and zero percent of his works conform to any standardized spelling/grammar system

"shakespeare couldn't spell his own name" is shorthand for "the snobbery of ~english literature & canon~ is both self-contradictory and arbitrary in the extreme." & to me this means that anyone can create whatever they want and be just as good as any shakespearean sonnet. bc the only real qualifier for "good writing" is that somebody cared about the story they were telling, and the only real qualifier for "good reading material" is that someone, somewhere, wants to read it

no gods no kings no earl of oxford only a bunch of plays written in a drama club's groupchat and the people who keep investing them with meaning. there is no magic formula or golden standard. the only thing that gives any art any value is the people who choose to value it

#ask linden #this is about the title of my blog #shakespeare couldn't spell his own name and NOBODY CARES! #this is my point! #nobody *should* care! it doesn't matter!! #also that last line abt earls of oxford is in reference to the ''oxfordian theory of shakespeare authorship'' as the wiki page calls it #u can check that on wikipedia if ur interested but what it boils down to is that a bunch of academics have been up in arms since ~the 1920s #over the idea that The Venerable Shakespeare could have been some rube born to commoners #obviously plays so Erudite (& so uniquely appealing to the ''commoner'' demographic) could not have been authored by some paltry lowborn! #why that boy billy probably couldn't even write! #- which like. cmon man. u have about as much evidence as chemtrails here. and also like - #yeah there's a solid chance shakespeare wasn't super up on his penmanship! but that doesn't mean he wasn't capable of eloquence?? #like in all probability a lot of shakespeare's work might not have been penned by him #& in fact it's not unlikely that at least some of it was quasi-crowdsourced as actors & collaborating playwrights weighed in #Richard Burbage probably had a lot to do with Hamlet's character work & writing!! we know this!! #we do not create in a vacuum!!! art written in a groupchat is not less valuable or artistic for having peer review built into it!! #shakespeare was just some guy. & he's also a symbol #arbitrary as that designation may be. but the old white men who chose their canon chose him as a patron saint #so i will go on insisting that if we're to know shakespeare we had better know him properly. foul mouth gallows humour bisexuality & all #shakespeare #literature #linden's originals #linden in the tags

[cto10121]

Reading Stalking Shakespeare by Lee Durkee and it’s a gift that keeps on giving

#🤣🤣🤣🤣 #stalking shakespeare #lee durkee #william shakespeare #life of will #this guy is hilarious #it went off the anti-stratfordian deep end tho #yeah he ruined it but at least i got these gems #he got redpilled by the oxfordians smh #but he did summarize the prince tudor theory as ‘shakespeare the motherfucker’ #stealing that btw it’s too good not to

[grandhotelabyss]

Alice Gribbin on the prejudices of the institutional left above, Matthew Gasda on the prejudices of the anti-institutional right below. You shall know them by their theories of art. If they think art flows directly out of political power, then they think the inmost recesses of humanity can and should be rationalized and operated by the same power. "Left" and "right," in this case at least, are entirely irrelevant. The sociology of art is inherently a totalitarian prospect.

#alice gribbin #matthew gasda #aesthetics #literature #william shakespeare #oxfordianism

[theodoradove]

The fact that I have a joke about Oxford commas and Oxfordians on my OK Cupid profile really tells you all you need to know about me

#the gist being that if you oppose oxford commas i shun you as i would an oxfordian #welcome to the niche corner

[laughingblue12]

The Heart of Shakespeare

Despite my skepticism about the accepted wisdom in regard to the historical William Shakespeare, I do deeply love the body of work that is Shakespeare.  My most favorite play is The Tempest, the final play in the canon.  I also have read and loved As You Like It, Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, The Merchant of Venice, Henry V, Richard III, Julius Caesar, Macbeth, Othello,…

View On WordPress

#books #conspiracy theory #goofiness #history #humor #literature #Oxfordian theory #Shakespeare #William Shakespeare

[shakespearenews]

...Will in the World is a bestseller, and award-bedecked, and if you wish to learn about England during the life of Shakespeare, it’s not a bad place to start. But in terms of the Bard himself, the book is a house of cards in which every leaning laminated rectangle is printed with the word “maybe.”

...Waugh’s case relies less on doubt about chronology and more on what he believes to be coded references to Shakespeare being Oxford. These tend toward Dan Brown territory very quickly. According to Waugh, if you look at the famous portrait of Shakespeare in the First Folio, you will see a “bright light on the forehead and the great rays coming out from his collar,” which must be references to the “great Phoebus-Apollo, the patron god, hiding behind the mask of a player.” That patron must be Oxford because he was often referred to as Apollo. 

#books #history #conspiracy-theories #shakespeare #william shakespeare #will in the world #biography #isaac butler #oxfordians #oldest dumbest debate

[shoutsthedustflake]

I'm a Midwesterner with rather a lot of Irish Protestant in my family tree, so I have a selection of grudges that I have cultivated like a formal garden. Many of these, it will not surprise anyone on tumblr dot com to know, are online. This does not say anything good about my character.

Still, the little spark of confirmatory joy at learning that the prolix fascist operating system guy is also an Oxfordian was real and sharp.

#shakespeare #Shakespeare authorship #Oxfordian vs Stratfordian #contempt

[cinemaocd]

Someone on Theater Talk just called Rooster Byron "a Degenerate Oberon, king of the fairies."

I can't think of a better description of Mark Rylance to be honest...

#so appropriate that it's a shakespeare character as well #for our fave oxfordian #mark rylance #I'm liveblogging this I guess #theater talk

[comicgeekscomicgeek]

This makes me incredibly angry.

[ID: Screenshots of a Facebook post from user Advocatus Peregrini, which reads:

I was conversing with a fully-grown adult a few days ago, born and educated in the USA, who let this little gem drop:

"Well, it's like Shakespeare said, "Love conquers all!""

I pointed out that Shakespeare never said that, Virgil did, (Eclogues X) and Chaucer after him (Canterbury Tales.)

She said, "Oh I'm sure Shakespeare said that. In Romeo and Juliet!"

I sighed. I've been in that play several times, in different roles, and even directed it. That text does not occur in it.

But the real grind-my-teeth moment here was that if Romeo and Juliet can be said to have a message, it is most certainly not "Love conquers all," seeing as the lovers die by their own hands with a trail of their friends and relations' corpses in their wake.

Neither this fact, nor the fact that I knew the play, nor my explanation that Virgil and Chaucer used the phrase long before Shakespeare's birth dented her determination that "Love conquers all" came from Shakespeare.

"You don't know ALL the versions!" she protested.

All the versions?

Alternative Bard?

With every instinct screaming at me to let the matter drop, warning me that some horror that will not soon be absent from my nightmares waited around the next corner of this conversation. I pressed on.

It was a decision I was soon to regret.

I asked when she had first read "Romeo and Juliet." She said she had only read it once, when she was in Junior High. In the version she was taught, Romeo and Juliet survive, are reconciled with their parents, and are married in the church with their friends Mercutio and Tybalt arm in arm in the wedding party.

"Help me into some house, Benvolio, or I shall faint."

It turned out that her school had their own "version" of Romeo and Juliet, with an "uplifting" ending. This was printed and distributed by a religious education publisher. And it was the only version of the story that she had ever read. Of course she had HEARD other people say that the story was a tragedy, but she just assumed they were wrong.

And she did not see why MY version of Shakespeare should be considered better than HER Shakespeare, which, after all, had a much more wholesome ending.

I explained, in vain, that "my" version is definitive because Shakespeare actually wrote it (quiet, you Oxfordians. Don't make me stop this car) and the message of the play - that when adult stubbornness meets youthful impulsiveness tragedy ensues - is lost in the ersatz, happy-clappy ending.

She said the ending that had been Frankensteined onto Shakespeare's play by the "Christian Education" publisher was better than the original ending, "if the ending is as sad as you say it is."

At this point, I concluded that this was a person who deserved to go through the rest of her life "...safest in shame! being fool'd, by foolery thrive!" I bid her adieu.

After the conversation, I wondered, darkly, if that was to be the fate of Shakespeare, and all other literature if the happy-clappy people get their way - as harmless and "uplifiting" as a cheerleader's chant.

I wondered what these bowdlerizers would do with "Hamlet?" or worse, "Titus Andronicus" or "MacB-" Nothing wholesome, I'm sure. Oh, that's right, what they can't appropriate, they ban. Or burn.

In trying to protect children, we leave them undefended from "...the slings and arrows" that life will no doubt throw their way. Shakespeare raises the issues of tragedy - the fatal flaw, the last turning, the role of fate, as well or better than any author before or since. He is a gentle tutor, much to be preferred over that stern and dangerous teacher, Experientia Inopinatum.

But, as ever, it really isn't about the children. It's about the adults, and their desire to avoid answering difficult questions from agile young minds, who know no fear and swarm like eager flies around questions that have been boggling our best minds for millenia. To answer the questions that literature raises, you have to have thought deeply about them yourself. And that is something that few dare to do.]  end id

#social issues #censorship #shakespeare #william shakespeare #schools #education

[tehriz]

what is the niche belief specific to your field that renders a person instantly unfuckable

for me it is being an oxfordian

#reblog and put it in the tags #my roommate who does modern german history may need to put off a potential suitor #with a fake belief she does not actually hold but would make the person immediately disinterested #and she said 'i could use the sonderweg theory but that would also immediately make me a clown in my field' #my biologist roommate has decided it is the modern resurgence of lamarckian evolutionary theory #deeply interested in what is specific to other folks now

[a-dinosaur-a-day]

Round Three: Ambopteryx vs Caihong

Ambopteryx longibrachium

Artwork by Gabriel Ugueto, written by @i-draws-dinosaurs

Name meaning: Both wings with long arms

Time: 163 million years ago (Callovian stage of the Middle Jurassic)

Location: Haifanggou Formation, China

Look, evolution has done a lot of weird stuff to dinosaurs. It put penguins underwater, and did whatever the hall mamenchisaurid necks are, and game lambeosaurs a built-in face trumpet. But I would argue there is one group that represents dinosaur evolution at its most unhinged, and that is scansoropterygidae.

Scansoriopterygids were generally considered “weird little tree dinosaurs” in the 2000s, with long fingers to pick grubs out of bark or something. Then Yi qi swept along in 2015 and revealed that those long fingers were actually supporting membranous bat wings. With an extra bony rod (the “styliform element”) sticking out of the wrist to help support it, because well if you’re a dinosaur evolving bat wings why bother being normal about it after that? Although really, the dinosaurs did it first so bats actually have dinosaur wings.

Yi was sensational, but it was also extremely weird and completely unique. Even other scansoriopterygids didn’t have wing membranes, so the whole bat thing was a bit up in the air. Or not up in the air, as the case may be. But then along comes Ambopteryx, published in 2019, packing another set of skin wings, and the vindication of Yi is complete! 

Ambopteryx preserves a styliform element and wing membrane, as well as a thick coat of feathers, and honestly out of a whole selection of dinosaurs I think these might be some of the most huggable in the lot. Obviously this whole wing membrane thing didn’t end up working out for them long term, but Ambopteryx is part of an incredible lineage that challenged what we thought was possible for dinosaurs!

Caihong juji

Artwork by @i-draws-dinosaurs, written by @i-draws-dinosaurs

Name meaning: Rainbow with big crest

Time: 161 million years old (Oxfordian stage of the Late Jurassic)

Location: Tiaojishan Formation, China

It’s always a special treat to hear the announcement of a dinosaur with known colours, because it gives the most direct impression of how truly stunning these animals would have been to witness in real life. And Caihong might just be the most spectacular of them all so far, described in 2018 from an immaculate full-body fossil that preserves detailed feathers! Caihong’s feathers are longer than some other floofy dinosaurs, and would have had the appearance of a luxurious mane along its neck. Not only that, the fossil preserves feather microstructures that in life would have made this dinosaur gloriously iridescent!

Now iridescent dinosaurs aren’t new, Microraptor has been decked out in fabulous starling-esque plumage for a while now, but Caihong absolutely takes it to the next level. Its whole body was covered in iridescent black, including the enormous tail, but the real star of the show are the platelet-like melanosomes found on the head, neck, and the base of the tail. Different from the usual iridescent melanosomes, the structure of these tiny organelles reflects brilliantly iridescent colours, like those on the heads of hummingbirds and particularly the bright purple feathers on the necks of the trumpeter family. Caihong would have put on an absolutely dazzling jewel-toned display in the treetops or on the forest floor of prehistoric China!

#dmm #dmm rising stars #dinosaur march madness #dinosaurs #birds #palaeoblr #birblr #bracket #march madness #polls #paleontology #ambopteryx #caihong #round three

[grandhotelabyss]

If it's so obvious, then why did this idea have to wait until the early 20th century, when a utopian socialist who idealized the Middle Ages devised it? Why didn't it occur to Johnson or Hazlitt or Coleridge? Why did anti-Stratfordianism only arise in the late 19th century in a literary culture that for various post-Industrial-Revolution reasons didn't want "the Bard" to have been a litigious capitalist? Why was its first manifestation, the Francis Bacon thesis, the ideological opposite of Oxfordianism, presenting a republican rather than an aristocratic "Shakespeare"? (See my larger critique of the Oxfordians here.)

Perhaps my least favorite feature of Oxfordianism, though, is the way it replicates on the margin of intellectual respectability the assumptions of the most boring "official" criticism: a dull, pedantic, antiquarian historicism that chains the plays down in their own era with no account of the retrocausality of influence discussed earlier on here, with no sense that, as Žižek once said, and I freely quote from an old Tweet, "There is more truth in the later efficacy of a text, in the series of its subsequent readings, than in its supposedly original meaning."

Shakespeare, as Borges said, is "everyone and no one," which is why, on the symbolic-poetic rather than the literal-historical level, the obscure and inauspicious man from Stratford makes the better avatar of that particular genius.

(As for National Book Critics Circle nominee Isaac Butler, I knew him slightly. We were in graduate school at the University of Minnesota at the same time. Once, in a bar upstairs of which the young Bob Dylan had briefly lived, we had a friendly quarrel about the film A Dangerous Method. He said a film about Freud should have a sexual subtext, which Cronenberg's film, though superficially erotic, plainly lacked. I replied that, since we as a society no longer repress sex, a sexual subtext would be supererogatory, and that the film's repressed subtext was a more controversial topic for us: Zionism. Then we traded Alan Moore impersonations. See, isn't court gossip fun? In retrospect, Isaac and I should have spent that time devising a theory that the works of Bob Dylan were actually written by Nelson Rockefeller Jr. or perhaps Marvin Bush.)

#william shakespeare #oxfordianism #literary criticism

[peasantexchangeprogram]

its so hard watching anglosphere period dramas about non-anglo cultures actually. who the fuck is 'anthony'. hes a roman statesman not a debauched misogynistic oxfordian literature student

#mine*