🚀 go-pugleaf

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.