🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 1, 1:57 am, Harlan Messinger
<hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote:
> Panu 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.
>
> Or you could just be a person with an opinion who assumes arrogantly
> that anyone else under the same circumstances would agree with him.

That is as may be, but I distrust these cthulhu-ish cults. I have more
or less the same view of Pushkin, another writer with an officially-
sponsored cult. Pushkin was obviously a talented poet in Russian, but
his work does not travel or translate well. He should have written
more prose, because the little he did write was not particularly bad.