Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
General Discussion: What Would an "Investigation" Consist of? - by Trevor Marriott 5 minutes ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Fisherman 15 minutes ago.
General Discussion: What Would an "Investigation" Consist of? - by harry 5 hours ago.
Conferences and Meetings: The East End Conference 2018: London - by Andrew Firth 11 hours ago.
General Discussion: What Would an "Investigation" Consist of? - by Wickerman 11 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Sam Flynn 12 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - (38 posts)
General Discussion: What Would an "Investigation" Consist of? - (4 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (4 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (3 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: The East End Conference 2018: London - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Social Chat > Other Mysteries

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 05-22-2012, 07:51 PM
Sally Sally is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Badgers Drift
Posts: 2,094
Default

Quote:
However, let's not simply repeat the lazy, illogical, and deeply unfair accusation that those who propose alternative candidates do so because they are elitists who think only bluebloods can be geniuses.
They ultimately do, I'm afraid. I've read the books Henry, and I stick by my view - although I'll concede that many subscribe to these theories simply because they are 'anti-establishment; it is nonetheless true that they are engendered by an unwillingnes, or inability, to accept that an 'ordinary' man could have achieved in Shakespearian fashion.

Ergo, Shakespeare cannot be Shakespeare.

The difficulty arises in part, I feel, from the apparent disparity between Shakespeare's dramatic works and what is known of his personal life. It is kind of mundane.

Marlowe ought to make a much better Shakespeare, in theory.

And Van Gogh ought to make a better Jack than some unknown nobody, I guess.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-22-2012, 11:44 PM
Robert Robert is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,828
Default

Keats came from a humble background yet soaked his poetry in classical references. Of course, he wasn't a Shakespeare, but some people have minds like flypaper - they only have to hear or read something once, and it sticks. Then they go on to win quiz shows.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-22-2012, 11:51 PM
Supe Supe is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Connecticut panhandle socket
Posts: 955
Default

Sally,

I quite agree with you.

Don.
__________________
"To expose [the Senator] is rather like performing acts of charity among the deserving poor; it needs to be done and it makes one feel good, but it does nothing to end the problem."
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-23-2012, 01:47 AM
Errata Errata is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tennessee, U.S.
Posts: 2,937
Default

I've been performing Shakespeare since an age appropriate Juliet (super creepy by the way), and the question of authorship has always seemed moot to me. Sure you want the right guy to get credit, but nothing in any of the plays can rule out one kind of man, or guarantee another. But he was primarily a playwright. And this is where it gets tricky. The man behind Much Ado About Nothing is NOT the same man behind Henry V, though both were written by the same hand. The extraordinary thing about Shakespeare is not his use of language, his imagery, his creativity, etc. It is his mastery of both comedy and drama, and no playwright before or since has ever masterfully handled both. The use of language, imagery, etc. in both Much Ado About Nothing is the same. As individual as a signature. But the themes, emphasis and characterizations are radically different. Shakespeare does not have a comfort zone. He doesn't have universal themes. Your average writer has a niche. Morality plays, plays about class difference, religion, the nature of humanity, whatever. Shakespeare doesn't. He takes on every theme with similar ease, though not necessarily similar success *cough* Titus Andronicus *cough*

How on earth could one man be so diverse? How does a guy go from "ooh pretty fairy farce" to "characterization of the monster: wicked uncle"? Ask any writer, and they will tell you that comedy is harder. You really either have it or you don't. Comic sensibility cannot be faked. So clearly Shakespeare had it. Can a comic writer come up with the St. Crispin's Day speech? Maybe, but he couldn't also come up with the shattering of Lady Macbeth's mind, the horror of the unfolding events of Othello, or even the simple tragedy of a good man forced to do terrible things in Julius Caesar. Conversely, no mind that can encompass these tragedies can then put Dogberry in what is already a damned funny play.

I would posit that Shakespeare wrote his own comedies. They are naturally funny. Not forced funny like a Jerry Lewis movie. I think someone else wrote his great tragedies, and handed them off for him to "bard" up. Today in school we learn to "translate" Shakespeare. But back then, you still had to translate it to an extent, because while the language was modern, the format was unusual. You couldn't just write a play and pass it off as Shakespeare. It had to be in iambic pentameter, often rhyming, his style was unique. If someone wrote Hamlet the way it would have been spoken by real people, it wouldn't have gotten anywhere. Give it to Shakespeare to rewrite in his style, and it would be huge. It would explain his facility with every genre, which is not something that in truth, anybody has. Even if Shakespeare was really Marlowe (which I don't think he is) he couldn't have written all of Shakespeare's plays. Marlowe would have had to outsource the comedies.

By the way, worst part of Anonymous (which I walked out of)? De Vere growing Tudor roses in a pot. As though they were an actual flower. What you get a big movie script you don't even check Wikipedia anymore?
__________________
The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-23-2012, 09:11 AM
Sally Sally is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Badgers Drift
Posts: 2,094
Default Nah,,

I don't buy that Errata, sorry.

Why couldn't one man have been adept at comedy, and tragedy, and also have been a whizz at the soap opera of the day, the 'history' play? Eh?

Most of Shakespeare's ideas were nicked - oh, ok, then, 'derived' - in part or pretty much whole from tales that already existed. Well, that makes sense, doesn't it - I mean, who's going to be able to churn out works of dramatic wonder from scratch at that kind of pace?

So he already had the basic plot - as in Hamlet, e.g.

As for the comedy - a lot of that was really just the one joke; that marvel of contemporary humour, the 'supposes' - y'know, where everyone dresses up as everyone else and it all gets horribly confused but miraculously turns out alright in the end. It was ever so popular, I believe.

So he already had the device.

It seems to me that what Shakespeare was best at in dramatic terms was assimilating what was already there and giving it that old Shakespeare magic.

He did have one excellent advantage in turning his hand to this and that too - he was an actor - he had seen every type of play which he turned his hand to performed, and had probably performed in many himself. Shakespeare wasn't impossible, or even improbable, he was just very, very good at what he did.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-23-2012, 11:32 AM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,132
Default

Quote:
They ultimately do, I'm afraid. I've read the books Henry, and I stick by my view - although I'll concede that many subscribe to these theories simply because they are 'anti-establishment; it is nonetheless true that they are engendered by an unwillingnes, or inability, to accept that an 'ordinary' man could have achieved in Shakespearian fashion.
That's fine Sally, if you simply assert it often enough then doubtless it must be true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-23-2012, 03:19 PM
Errata Errata is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tennessee, U.S.
Posts: 2,937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sally View Post

He did have one excellent advantage in turning his hand to this and that too - he was an actor - he had seen every type of play which he turned his hand to performed, and had probably performed in many himself. Shakespeare wasn't impossible, or even improbable, he was just very, very good at what he did.
It isn't about the plot, which were often "nicked" as you say. It's the monologues. Or in some cases dialogues. The turns of phrase. His works are very emotive. Much Ado makes you laugh at loud. Henry V makes you swell with pride, Othello makes you cry. I'm a pretty good playwright when I have a mind to be, and I can do comedies, mostly absurdities. Tom Stoppard is one of the greatest contemporary playwrights, and he does paradox. That's what he does. Neil Simon does sentiment. Christopher Durang does comedy. They have niches. And these guys are brilliant. What reason would I have to believe that Shakespeare was five times better than the greatest theatrical minds of our generation? Especially at the pace he worked. He had to have had help. Some guy to write a rousing speech for him, or a brooding monologue. Had he simply aped what had come before, he would have been blasted for it. He had the originality of three men. I think he literally had to talents of at least two.
__________________
The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-23-2012, 05:25 PM
mariab mariab is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Berlin
Posts: 2,977
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Errata View Post
How on earth could one man be so diverse?
It's called being a genious, Errata. By the by, tremendous diversity exists already when comparing JUST his comedies. Compare Troilus and Cressida to As you like it. Compare the comedies of his youth to The tempest. Study his works a bit, and you'll see the commun denominators in structure, plot devices, way he presents the characters, the way he ends a play, figures of speech, metaphores in both his comedies and tragedies. This is all by the same author.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Errata View Post
Comic sensibility cannot be faked. So clearly Shakespeare had it. Can a comic writer come up with the St. Crispin's Day speech? {...}I would posit that Shakespeare wrote his own comedies. {...} I think someone else wrote his great tragedies, and handed them off for him to "bard" up.
Right on. And 2 different people wrote Chekhov's plays, Mozart's/Rossini's comic vs. tragic vs. historical operas, 2 different authors collaborated on Dickens novels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sally View Post
Why couldn't one man have been adept at comedy, and tragedy, and also have been a whizz at the soap opera of the day, the 'history' play?
Most of Shakespeare's ideas were nicked - oh, ok, then, 'derived' - in part or pretty much whole from tales that already existed. Well, that makes sense, doesn't it - I mean, who's going to be able to churn out works of dramatic wonder from scratch at that kind of pace?
As for the comedy - a lot of that was really just the one joke; that marvel of contemporary humour, the 'supposes' - y'know, where everyone dresses up as everyone else and it all gets horribly confused but miraculously turns out alright in the end. It was ever so popular, I believe.
So he already had the device. It seems to me that what Shakespeare was best at in dramatic terms was assimilating what was already there and giving it that old Shakespeare magic.
Precisely, Sally. Not unlike how Mozart and Rossini worked in assimilating tradition into deeper and more complex works than their contemporaries. Rossini in particular used collaborators for the insignificant parts and carefully adapted self borrowings from other works. It's a method many painters have also used for efficiency, particularly the ones who run a studio with apprentices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sally View Post
He did have one excellent advantage in turning his hand to this and that too - he was an actor - he had seen every type of play which he turned his hand to performed, and had probably performed in many himself. Shakespeare wasn't impossible, or even improbable, he was just very, very good at what he did.
Very well said. And precisely about the actor part. Just like Molière – who, him, has a niche and has simply written the same play about a dozen times, though incredibly well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Errata View Post
You couldn't just write a play and pass it off as Shakespeare. It had to be in iambic pentameter, often rhyming, his style was unique.
It's not his speech that was unique, it's the structure of his plays and the complexity/depth of his characters that are characteristically Shakespearean. Have you read any Marlowe? He's what you would have called emotional. It's not the form, but the content that differentiates any contemporary playwrighter from Shakes. Not Iambic pentameter, which came naturally to Elizabethans, the way Aléxandrins came naturally to the French from the 17th century to the 1830s.
__________________
Best regards,
Maria
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-23-2012, 06:24 PM
Cogidubnus Cogidubnus is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: West Sussex UK
Posts: 3,145
Default

I'm with you Maria!

Dave
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-23-2012, 07:55 PM
Sally Sally is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Badgers Drift
Posts: 2,094
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Flower View Post
That's fine Sally, if you simply assert it often enough then doubtless it must be true.
Fiddlesticks Henry. It's my view; with which you are quite at liberty to disagree. If I'd wanted to deal in 'truth' I'd have become a philospher.

Now there are those who apparently believe that repetition is equal to corroboration; but I'm not one of them.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.