Will

[CBStew]

I admit it.  I have a great interest in Shakespeare.  Not so much the plays, but the person.   I have around a dozen books about his life and times.  I am amazed at the scholarship  surrounding his life.  About 50 years after he died the biographers started in on him, and thousands of books have been published about him.  It is amazing that there are some "scholars" who doubt his authorship.  (Mark Twain, Winston Churchill, etc.)  Yet when he lived no one accused him of claiming credit for someone else's work.  I guess no one at that time thought there would ever be any reason to doubt his authorship.  In fact, it is well known what he wrote and with whom he collaborated.  The claim is that he had only the equivalent of a grammar school education and it would be impossible for him to have acquired the talent.  I think that the same argument could be made about Abraham Lincoln. 
This series makes Shakespeare into a naïve booby, which is a novel approach to say the least.  It has him writing the script for Act One, scene two, while the actors are on stage performing Act One, scene one.  It also suggests that the actors improvised at will (no pun intended) and that he then incorporated the improvisations.  I guess that is possible, but this is the first that I have heard about it.  What else?  Female actors.  No, not men dressed as women.  Actresses?  "Shakespeare In Love" nothwithstanding, that just didn't happen during Shakespeare's lifetime.  It took about 75 years after he died for women to be allowed on an English stage. 
In spite of all these issues, I will follow the entire series because I am hooked on Shakespeare and the diverse approaches to his story. 

[PenFoe]

I admit it.  I have a great interest in Shakespeare.  Not so much the plays, but the person.   I have around a dozen books about his life and times.  I am amazed at the scholarship  surrounding his life.  About 50 years after he died the biographers started in on him, and thousands of books have been published about him.  It is amazing that there are some "scholars" who doubt his authorship.  (Mark Twain, Winston Churchill, etc.)  Yet when he lived no one accused him of claiming credit for someone else's work.  I guess no one at that time thought there would ever be any reason to doubt his authorship.  In fact, it is well known what he wrote and with whom he collaborated.  The claim is that he had only the equivalent of a grammar school education and it would be impossible for him to have acquired the talent.  I think that the same argument could be made about Abraham Lincoln. 
This series makes Shakespeare into a naïve booby, which is a novel approach to say the least.  It has him writing the script for Act One, scene two, while the actors are on stage performing Act One, scene one.  It also suggests that the actors improvised at will (no pun intended) and that he then incorporated the improvisations.  I guess that is possible, but this is the first that I have heard about it.  What else?  Female actors.  No, not men dressed as women.  Actresses?  "Shakespeare In Love" nothwithstanding, that just didn't happen during Shakespeare's lifetime.  It took about 75 years after he died for women to be allowed on an English stage. 
In spite of all these issues, I will follow the entire series because I am hooked on Shakespeare and the diverse approaches to his story. 

Have you read the Bill Bryson book?

[Saul Goodman]

"I hate literally everything about this show but I still plan to watch every episode."

Let it never be said that Stew is not a Shakespeare connoisseur of the finest order.

[Quality Start Machine]

I admit it.  I have a great interest in Shakespeare.  Not so much the plays, but the person.   I have around a dozen books about his life and times.  I am amazed at the scholarship  surrounding his life.  About 50 years after he died the biographers started in on him, and thousands of books have been published about him.  It is amazing that there are some "scholars" who doubt his authorship.  (Mark Twain, Winston Churchill, etc.)  Yet when he lived no one accused him of claiming credit for someone else's work.  I guess no one at that time thought there would ever be any reason to doubt his authorship.  In fact, it is well known what he wrote and with whom he collaborated.  The claim is that he had only the equivalent of a grammar school education and it would be impossible for him to have acquired the talent.  I think that the same argument could be made about Abraham Lincoln. 
This series makes Shakespeare into a naïve booby, which is a novel approach to say the least.  It has him writing the script for Act One, scene two, while the actors are on stage performing Act One, scene one.  It also suggests that the actors improvised at will (no pun intended) and that he then incorporated the improvisations.  I guess that is possible, but this is the first that I have heard about it.  What else?  Female actors.  No, not men dressed as women.  Actresses?  "Shakespeare In Love" nothwithstanding, that just didn't happen during Shakespeare's lifetime.  It took about 75 years after he died for women to be allowed on an English stage. 
In spite of all these issues, I will follow the entire series because I am hooked on Shakespeare and the diverse approaches to his story. 

Are they running chronologically, or is it concentrating on Elizabethan or Jacobian era?

[CBStew]

I admit it.  I have a great interest in Shakespeare.  Not so much the plays, but the person.   I have around a dozen books about his life and times.  I am amazed at the scholarship  surrounding his life.  About 50 years after he died the biographers started in on him, and thousands of books have been published about him.  It is amazing that there are some "scholars" who doubt his authorship.  (Mark Twain, Winston Churchill, etc.)  Yet when he lived no one accused him of claiming credit for someone else's work.  I guess no one at that time thought there would ever be any reason to doubt his authorship.  In fact, it is well known what he wrote and with whom he collaborated.  The claim is that he had only the equivalent of a grammar school education and it would be impossible for him to have acquired the talent.  I think that the same argument could be made about Abraham Lincoln. 
This series makes Shakespeare into a naïve booby, which is a novel approach to say the least.  It has him writing the script for Act One, scene two, while the actors are on stage performing Act One, scene one.  It also suggests that the actors improvised at will (no pun intended) and that he then incorporated the improvisations.  I guess that is possible, but this is the first that I have heard about it.  What else?  Female actors.  No, not men dressed as women.  Actresses?  "Shakespeare In Love" nothwithstanding, that just didn't happen during Shakespeare's lifetime.  It took about 75 years after he died for women to be allowed on an English stage. 
In spite of all these issues, I will follow the entire series because I am hooked on Shakespeare and the diverse approaches to his story. 

Are they running chronologically, or is it concentrating on Elizabethan or Jacobian era?

  So far he hasn't published anything so it has to be Elizabethan.  His first stuff was his poems.  Venus and Adonis, Lucrece.  But in this farce his first efforts seem to be unnamed plays.  Jeez.  Why am I watching?

[Quality Start Machine]

I admit it.  I have a great interest in Shakespeare.  Not so much the plays, but the person.   I have around a dozen books about his life and times.  I am amazed at the scholarship  surrounding his life.  About 50 years after he died the biographers started in on him, and thousands of books have been published about him.  It is amazing that there are some "scholars" who doubt his authorship.  (Mark Twain, Winston Churchill, etc.)  Yet when he lived no one accused him of claiming credit for someone else's work.  I guess no one at that time thought there would ever be any reason to doubt his authorship.  In fact, it is well known what he wrote and with whom he collaborated.  The claim is that he had only the equivalent of a grammar school education and it would be impossible for him to have acquired the talent.  I think that the same argument could be made about Abraham Lincoln. 
This series makes Shakespeare into a naïve booby, which is a novel approach to say the least.  It has him writing the script for Act One, scene two, while the actors are on stage performing Act One, scene one.  It also suggests that the actors improvised at will (no pun intended) and that he then incorporated the improvisations.  I guess that is possible, but this is the first that I have heard about it.  What else?  Female actors.  No, not men dressed as women.  Actresses?  "Shakespeare In Love" nothwithstanding, that just didn't happen during Shakespeare's lifetime.  It took about 75 years after he died for women to be allowed on an English stage. 
In spite of all these issues, I will follow the entire series because I am hooked on Shakespeare and the diverse approaches to his story. 

Are they running chronologically, or is it concentrating on Elizabethan or Jacobian era?

  So far he hasn't published anything so it has to be Elizabethan.  His first stuff was his poems.  Venus and Adonis, Lucrece.  But in this farce his first efforts seem to be unnamed plays.  Jeez.  Why am I watching?

Well, I have it on good authority that Billy Shakespeare wrote a whole bunch of sonnets.

[CBStew]

I admit it.  I have a great interest in Shakespeare.  Not so much the plays, but the person.   I have around a dozen books about his life and times.  I am amazed at the scholarship  surrounding his life.  About 50 years after he died the biographers started in on him, and thousands of books have been published about him.  It is amazing that there are some "scholars" who doubt his authorship.  (Mark Twain, Winston Churchill, etc.)  Yet when he lived no one accused him of claiming credit for someone else's work.  I guess no one at that time thought there would ever be any reason to doubt his authorship.  In fact, it is well known what he wrote and with whom he collaborated.  The claim is that he had only the equivalent of a grammar school education and it would be impossible for him to have acquired the talent.  I think that the same argument could be made about Abraham Lincoln. 
This series makes Shakespeare into a naïve booby, which is a novel approach to say the least.  It has him writing the script for Act One, scene two, while the actors are on stage performing Act One, scene one.  It also suggests that the actors improvised at will (no pun intended) and that he then incorporated the improvisations.  I guess that is possible, but this is the first that I have heard about it.  What else?  Female actors.  No, not men dressed as women.  Actresses?  "Shakespeare In Love" nothwithstanding, that just didn't happen during Shakespeare's lifetime.  It took about 75 years after he died for women to be allowed on an English stage. 
In spite of all these issues, I will follow the entire series because I am hooked on Shakespeare and the diverse approaches to his story. 

Are they running chronologically, or is it concentrating on Elizabethan or Jacobian era?

  So far he hasn't published anything so it has to be Elizabethan.  His first stuff was his poems.  Venus and Adonis, Lucrece.  But in this farce his first efforts seem to be unnamed plays.  Jeez.  Why am I watching?

Well, I have it on good authority that Billy Shakespeare wrote a whole bunch of sonnets.

They probably believe that it was the Earl of Oxford.

[Bort]

I admit it.  I have a great interest in Shakespeare.  Not so much the plays, but the person.   I have around a dozen books about his life and times.  I am amazed at the scholarship  surrounding his life.  About 50 years after he died the biographers started in on him, and thousands of books have been published about him.  It is amazing that there are some "scholars" who doubt his authorship.  (Mark Twain, Winston Churchill, etc.)  Yet when he lived no one accused him of claiming credit for someone else's work.  I guess no one at that time thought there would ever be any reason to doubt his authorship.  In fact, it is well known what he wrote and with whom he collaborated.  The claim is that he had only the equivalent of a grammar school education and it would be impossible for him to have acquired the talent.  I think that the same argument could be made about Abraham Lincoln. 
This series makes Shakespeare into a naïve booby, which is a novel approach to say the least.  It has him writing the script for Act One, scene two, while the actors are on stage performing Act One, scene one.  It also suggests that the actors improvised at will (no pun intended) and that he then incorporated the improvisations.  I guess that is possible, but this is the first that I have heard about it.  What else?  Female actors.  No, not men dressed as women.  Actresses?  "Shakespeare In Love" nothwithstanding, that just didn't happen during Shakespeare's lifetime.  It took about 75 years after he died for women to be allowed on an English stage. 
In spite of all these issues, I will follow the entire series because I am hooked on Shakespeare and the diverse approaches to his story. 

Are they running chronologically, or is it concentrating on Elizabethan or Jacobian era?

  So far he hasn't published anything so it has to be Elizabethan.  His first stuff was his poems.  Venus and Adonis, Lucrece.  But in this farce his first efforts seem to be unnamed plays.  Jeez.  Why am I watching?

Well, I have it on good authority that Billy Shakespeare wrote a whole bunch of sonnets.

They probably believe that it was the Earl of Oxford.

Oxfordians are the worst.

[Tonker]

I admit it.  I have a great interest in Shakespeare.  Not so much the plays, but the person.   I have around a dozen books about his life and times.  I am amazed at the scholarship  surrounding his life.  About 50 years after he died the biographers started in on him, and thousands of books have been published about him.  It is amazing that there are some "scholars" who doubt his authorship.  (Mark Twain, Winston Churchill, etc.)  Yet when he lived no one accused him of claiming credit for someone else's work.  I guess no one at that time thought there would ever be any reason to doubt his authorship.  In fact, it is well known what he wrote and with whom he collaborated.  The claim is that he had only the equivalent of a grammar school education and it would be impossible for him to have acquired the talent.  I think that the same argument could be made about Abraham Lincoln. 
This series makes Shakespeare into a naïve booby, which is a novel approach to say the least.  It has him writing the script for Act One, scene two, while the actors are on stage performing Act One, scene one.  It also suggests that the actors improvised at will (no pun intended) and that he then incorporated the improvisations.  I guess that is possible, but this is the first that I have heard about it.  What else?  Female actors.  No, not men dressed as women.  Actresses?  "Shakespeare In Love" nothwithstanding, that just didn't happen during Shakespeare's lifetime.  It took about 75 years after he died for women to be allowed on an English stage. 
In spite of all these issues, I will follow the entire series because I am hooked on Shakespeare and the diverse approaches to his story. 

Are they running chronologically, or is it concentrating on Elizabethan or Jacobian era?

  So far he hasn't published anything so it has to be Elizabethan.  His first stuff was his poems.  Venus and Adonis, Lucrece.  But in this farce his first efforts seem to be unnamed plays.  Jeez.  Why am I watching?

Well, I have it on good authority that Billy Shakespeare wrote a whole bunch of sonnets.

They probably believe that it was the Earl of Oxford.

Oxfordians are the worst.

*Oxonians

[Bort]

I admit it.  I have a great interest in Shakespeare.  Not so much the plays, but the person.   I have around a dozen books about his life and times.  I am amazed at the scholarship  surrounding his life.  About 50 years after he died the biographers started in on him, and thousands of books have been published about him.  It is amazing that there are some "scholars" who doubt his authorship.  (Mark Twain, Winston Churchill, etc.)  Yet when he lived no one accused him of claiming credit for someone else's work.  I guess no one at that time thought there would ever be any reason to doubt his authorship.  In fact, it is well known what he wrote and with whom he collaborated.  The claim is that he had only the equivalent of a grammar school education and it would be impossible for him to have acquired the talent.  I think that the same argument could be made about Abraham Lincoln. 
This series makes Shakespeare into a naïve booby, which is a novel approach to say the least.  It has him writing the script for Act One, scene two, while the actors are on stage performing Act One, scene one.  It also suggests that the actors improvised at will (no pun intended) and that he then incorporated the improvisations.  I guess that is possible, but this is the first that I have heard about it.  What else?  Female actors.  No, not men dressed as women.  Actresses?  "Shakespeare In Love" nothwithstanding, that just didn't happen during Shakespeare's lifetime.  It took about 75 years after he died for women to be allowed on an English stage. 
In spite of all these issues, I will follow the entire series because I am hooked on Shakespeare and the diverse approaches to his story. 

Are they running chronologically, or is it concentrating on Elizabethan or Jacobian era?

  So far he hasn't published anything so it has to be Elizabethan.  His first stuff was his poems.  Venus and Adonis, Lucrece.  But in this farce his first efforts seem to be unnamed plays.  Jeez.  Why am I watching?

Well, I have it on good authority that Billy Shakespeare wrote a whole bunch of sonnets.

They probably believe that it was the Earl of Oxford.

Oxfordians are the worst.

*Oxonians

No, Belgian Chuck.