tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1702412755735548041.post2466198341839800805..comments2023-12-06T06:30:16.653-05:00Comments on The American Shakespeare Center's Education Department Blog: Imprimis: Links and Tidbits -- 'Anonymous' EditionSarah Enloehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04702259810142614605noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1702412755735548041.post-26062081790964609022011-11-09T12:52:52.604-05:002011-11-09T12:52:52.604-05:00Thank you--yet again--for ridiculing this pernic...Thank you--yet again--for ridiculing this pernicious film and its persistent rubbish about the Earl of Oxford. Leaving aside the obvious implausibility of a life-long conspiracy theory in which everyone in and around the courts of Elizabeth and James--to say nothing of the rest of the London intelligentsia--would have had to be somehow complicit (and for what possible reason?), there are two glaring facts that should silence anyone with a brain who ever entertained such nonsense:<br /><br />1. The Earl of Oxford died in 1604. By what prophetic magic could he have anticipated, in advance, the huge shift in theatrical tastes from tragedy toward masque and spectacle--tastes to which Shakespeare clearly caters in his late romances in 1611-12?<br /><br />2. The proof is in the pudding. We have many poems actually written by the Earl of Oxford--and they are uniformly shallow, cliche-ridden, and devoid of imagination. Why would he write such banal trash under his own name, while writing the greatest monuments in the English language under a pseudonym? Go figure...Tom Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10430497460189579096noreply@blogger.com