🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 28, 6:42 pm, Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 12:10 am, Harlan Messinger
>
>
>
>
>
> <hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote:
> > Panu wrote:
> > > On Feb 28, 9:01 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >> On Feb 28, 12:00 pm, Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> On Feb 28, 5:00 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >>>> On Feb 28, 9:55 am, Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> On Feb 28, 3:47 pm, "Peter Farey" <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
> > >>>>>> "Panu" wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Proof that 'Shakespeare' was Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford
> > >>>>>>> Who the hell is interested in Shakespeare anyway?
> > >>>>>> Rather more than those who are interested in Na'vi or Dnghe I suspect?
> > >>>>> I'm not talking about quantity, but quality. Besides, Shakespeare
> > >>>>> would not interest anyone if he wasn't so heavily subsidized.
> > >>>> What _are_ you talking about? (Both points.)
> > >>> You know perfectly well that Shakespeare is just a minor, obscure
> > >>> dramatist from the dark dungeons of literary history writing in an
> > >>> English which is only partly intelligible to the speakers of the
> > >>> modern language. If he weren't force-fed to millions of poor
> > >>> schoolchildren in that benighted part of the world inhabited by
> > >>> monolingual speakers of English, he would already have been consigned,
> > >>> if not to merciful oblivion, so at least to the limbo that is the fate
> > >>> of all linguistically and culturally uninteresting writers meriting
> > >>> only second-rate academic interest.-
> > >> And of the crowds of Elizabethan playwrights, why is he the only one
> > >> whose works are regularly produced, even though they received no
> > >> special attention during his lifetime?
>
> > > You tell me. The Shakespeare cult has been around for so long that it
> > > is self-sustaining by now. Everybody sees it as their duty to praise
> > > the Emperor's new clothes.
>
> > This is like the line, "The Odyssey wasn't written by Homer but by
> > another man of that name." You're arguing that Shakespeare's work isn't
> > beloved, and that the people who love his work are a "cult" and
> > therefore something different.
>
> Most people who profess to "love" him were taught, indoctrinated,
> inculcated to do so. They were initiated to the cult at school. As I
> was brought up outside the cult community, i.e. the English-speaking
> world, I am able to see Shakespeare for what he is, i.e. the run-of-
> the-mill author of moderately successful plays, who, because of a
> quirk of literary history, was canonized into a secular saint. Of
> course, his genre pieces are probably slightly above average, but I
> staunchly refuse to join the cult.
>
>
>
> > How many figures of speech in common use today come from the works of
> > any of Shakespeare's contemporaries?
>
> How should I know? My figures of speech come mostly from Väinö Linna's
> "Tuntematon sotilas". As regards the cultists, it is hardly surprising
> that their figures of speech have been influenced by the cult.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

At last, someone breaking into HLAS with an offbeat view of the
Bard!

--Bob G.