The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Hamlet vs. Child Actors
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

My new Harvey Weinstein-related column in Taki’s Magazine, “The Overlord of Oscar Bait,” argues that, just as Hollywood should no longer import chimpanzees to appear in movies like Bedtime for Bonzo because they can now be digitally simulated by putting Andy Serkis in a motion capture suit, we should consider banning professional child actors in the fairly near future. Perhaps acting ought to be a profession for adults to choose freely, rather than for children to be pressured into by their stage moms and dads? For example, you aren’t allowed to be a professional football player until roughly age 21, so maybe child acting could be restricted to amateur theatricals up through, say, age 18.

One of the funnier aspects of Hamlet is that in the same astonishing scene (II, ii) in which Hamlet delivers his “quintessence of dust” speech for the ages, Shakespeare, speaking through Hamlet, goes on to indulge in some extremely topical and local satire regarding the London stage fad c. 1600 for grown-up plays (including a couple by Ben Jonson) performed by all-child troupes. (This exchange is often cut to shorten the run-time of productions of Hamlet.)

Shakespeare, the theatrical businessman, is particularly annoyed that Jonson’s plays for child actors satirize adult actors (such as Shakespeare’s own mostly grown-up troupe):

Hamlet — Do they [i.e., Globe players] hold the same estimation they did when I was in the city? are they so followed?

Rosencrantz — No indeed they are not.

Hamlet — How comes it? do they grow rusty?

Rosencrantz — Nay, their endeavour keeps in the wonted pace: but there is sir, an aery [nest] of children, little eyases [eaglets], that cry out on the top of question, and are most tyrannically clapped for’t: these are now the fashion, and so berattle [i.e., abuse] the common stages – so they call them – that many wearing rapiers [i.e., gallants] are afraid of goose-quills [i.e., the satire of the boys' playwrights] and dare scarce come thither [i.e., to the public playhouses].

Hamlet — What, are they children? who maintains ‘em? how are they escoted [i. e., paid]? Will they pursue the quality [i. e., the profession of acting] no longer than they can sing [i. e., before their voices change]? will they not say afterwards, if they should grow to common players – as it is most like, if their means are no better – their writers do them wrong to make them exclaim against their own succession [i.e., the profession of public actor, to which they must shortly succeed].

This dialogue is often cut in productions of Hamlet to get the play over before midnight.

Also, in Tom Stoppard’s inversion of Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, it is pointedly implied that the impoverished mostly adult actors troupe that comes through Elsinore is not above — times being what they are (indifferent) — pimping out the youngest boy in their troupe for special private performances.

 
• Tags: Movies, Shakespeare, Stage 
Hide 101 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. I would love to believe that elite pedophilia is the next shoe to drop, but I’m not holding my breath.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    For those of us who are conspiracy theorists, the dam is always about the burst, but the rivers are always carry off the excess just in the nick of time before the water comes flooding in.

    I think there will one day be revelations that trickle in, but Hollywood is pretty good at keeping secrets from all coming out at inopportune times; we only learn about who was gay in Hollywood and who was a slut decades, who was a junkie and who had severe mental problems later now, usually in tell-alls, long after many are dead or careers are finished. So it will be with the child molesters, unless the feds get involved and, you know, actually do some prosecutions. Given how poorly the FBI performs, however, it's unlikely. Hollywood studios are a monopoly who control everything in their industry; anyone who comes forward will be ignored and pushed aside after this Weinstein thing tampers down, sadly.

    Separately, much of Shakespeare was topical of its time. Take the much-maligned Richard II, which is a proto-Hamlet: an ineffective, unsure ruler/main character is constantly second guessing himself into "analysis paralysis", leading to more decisive men (Henry Bolingbroke in Richard II, Fortinbras in Hamlet) to swoop in and become rulers.

    Richard II
    was actually about then-current queen Elizabeth, who, far from the beloved legendary queen she is painted as today, was viewed as an indecisive, weak ruler. Elizabeth herself famously remarked, "I am Richard II, know ye not that?" One of the many conspiracies against Elizabeth commissioned a private performance of Richard II the night before their attempt, all to increase their morale.

    Yet these days Richard II is maligned a lot, and rarely performed. Although clunky, it is a good nuanced vision of both why a "bad" ruler is both not "evil" and yet perhaps needs to be removed for the health of the state; politics is messy. That's not to the tune of today's theater goers, who demand far less nuance---bad guys (e.g. conservatives, republicans, Trump) are just evil powermongers, don't you see? This is why Richard III, whose bad guy is just malevolent for no reason but does spectacularly bad things both via manipulation and via action, is much more popular amongst the lefty set of today.

    , @The Alarmist
    Look at it this way. Time the elites do not spend screwing children is time they have to screw the rest of us. It's a small price to pay.
    , @SMK
    What do you mean by "pedophilia" -consensual sex between adults (those age 18 and older) and "children" (including biological men and women under age 18)? A pedophile is a man (including adolescent males under age 18 who are absurdly defined as "children") with a sexual fixation on and obsession with prepubescent children. The ultimate absurdity is demonizing women as "rapists" and "pedophiles" for allowing biological men under age 18 to penetrate them in factually consensual relationships -but only if they're 4-5 years older than their "victims" -the only crime in which the "victims" enjoy the actus reus (i.e. the ses) more than the women who "rape" and "molest" them and are often if not usually the aggressors and initiators of their phantasmal and theoretical "victimization." It's debatable if a women can even be a pedophile under the APA definition.
    , @anonymous
    I fear elite pedophilia WAS the shoe meant to drop but a deal was made to expose Harvey instead. It's absurd that we're expected to anguish over a bunch of grown-ass attention whores (aka hollywood actresses) while we pretend that hollywood pedophilia is not happening.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/hamlet-vs-child-actors/#comment-2048063
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Maj. Kong says:

    End film tax incentives

    End the taxpayer funding of sports stadiums

    Read More
    • Agree: Buffalo Joe, EriK
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Speaking of child actors….

    “Hollywood’s Other ‘Open Secret’ Besides Harvey Weinstein: Preying on Young Boys”

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/hollywoods-other-open-secret-besides-harvey-weinstein-preying-on-young-boys

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. their writers do them wrong to make them exclaim against their own succession

    There’s a statement of uniquely wide applicability to our current conundrum.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Langley says:

    Being against child actors is like being against child prostitutes!

    That is not who we are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    https://twitter.com/Scott_Wiener/status/920490440985477121
    , @J1234

    Being against child actors is like being against child prostitutes!
     
    Jody Foster was only 12 when she portrayed a prostitute in Taxi Driver. The movie's producers, in a display of concern for her welfare, made her see a shrink before they would give her the role. It seems to me the time for her to see a shrink would be after she played the role. Not only because of the role itself, but also because she might start wondering...what kind of parents would allow me to do such a thing at this age? (Or any age, really.)

    Despite all of this, it's actually US farm children who are being exploited by society, often times helping to work the land their ancestors worked instead of playing video games and getting obese like normal kids.

    https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/11/17/child-farmworkers-united-states-worst-form-child-labor
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. whorefinder says: • Website
    @Tim Howells
    I would love to believe that elite pedophilia is the next shoe to drop, but I'm not holding my breath.

    For those of us who are conspiracy theorists, the dam is always about the burst, but the rivers are always carry off the excess just in the nick of time before the water comes flooding in.

    I think there will one day be revelations that trickle in, but Hollywood is pretty good at keeping secrets from all coming out at inopportune times; we only learn about who was gay in Hollywood and who was a slut decades, who was a junkie and who had severe mental problems later now, usually in tell-alls, long after many are dead or careers are finished. So it will be with the child molesters, unless the feds get involved and, you know, actually do some prosecutions. Given how poorly the FBI performs, however, it’s unlikely. Hollywood studios are a monopoly who control everything in their industry; anyone who comes forward will be ignored and pushed aside after this Weinstein thing tampers down, sadly.

    Separately, much of Shakespeare was topical of its time. Take the much-maligned Richard II, which is a proto-Hamlet: an ineffective, unsure ruler/main character is constantly second guessing himself into “analysis paralysis”, leading to more decisive men (Henry Bolingbroke in Richard II, Fortinbras in Hamlet) to swoop in and become rulers.

    Richard II
    was actually about then-current queen Elizabeth, who, far from the beloved legendary queen she is painted as today, was viewed as an indecisive, weak ruler. Elizabeth herself famously remarked, “I am Richard II, know ye not that?” One of the many conspiracies against Elizabeth commissioned a private performance of Richard II the night before their attempt, all to increase their morale.

    Yet these days Richard II is maligned a lot, and rarely performed. Although clunky, it is a good nuanced vision of both why a “bad” ruler is both not “evil” and yet perhaps needs to be removed for the health of the state; politics is messy. That’s not to the tune of today’s theater goers, who demand far less nuance—bad guys (e.g. conservatives, republicans, Trump) are just evil powermongers, don’t you see? This is why Richard III, whose bad guy is just malevolent for no reason but does spectacularly bad things both via manipulation and via action, is much more popular amongst the lefty set of today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl
    6 whorefinder > “I am Richard II, know ye not that?”


    I'm so old, I can remember when white people didn't slavishly copy Africans in colloquial grammar

    When I establish my White-European-refugees village in Samaria, I will use the kindergardens to revive spoken Latin

    Will be interesting to see how that cohort of kids influences IDF slang when they reach conscription age.
    , @Tim Howells

    For those of us who are conspiracy theorists, the dam is always about the burst
     
    The dam actually burst in Belgium in the Marc Dutroux case. It's a small enough country and the number of kidnapped children was large enough that there were massive protests in the streets that paralysed the country for a few days. Still nothing lasting came of it!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6eBpZAhf3w
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. El Dato says:

    I think child actors can onloy act the way they do because they don’t understand 80% of the going-ons or else otherwise switch off otherwise their mind would blow out, but can we really do Leon The Professional with CGI?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Maj. Kong says:
    @Langley
    Being against child actors is like being against child prostitutes!

    That is not who we are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Anyone want to start a campaign with me portraying drag queens as "female blackface?"

    I never got the idea crackers hated darkies based on minstrel shows. They were always well-meaning, if shiftless, characters. You'll never see a touching tribute to womanhood like Old Ned from a drag queen.

    Not that female blackface is proof homos hate women. They do, but drag queens are rather proof they envy women. Even perverse, distorted funhouse mirror distortions of womanhood.

    , @Pericles
    Click through to get a better look at (((Scott Wiener))), California State Senator, and you will see he could easily become a satanic tranny himself. He's currently merely a homosexual Jew.

    Wiener is also behind the recent pro-HIV-spreading law of California and, prior to that, was publically taking Truvada, a compound to reduce the risk of getting HIV.

    Basically a crazy person who gets to lord it over Clown World. Please join his annual children's pumpkin carving contest.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. the big rumors of worse-than-weinstein-stuff are about Rob Reiner.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. guest says:

    I assume the plan is to get rid of actors entirely. Hopefully that’s forever away, because judging by the abominations in Rogue One Hollywood sucks at it and is going to suck at it for a long time.

    The Andy Serkis characters are really just cartoons. Plenty of supposedly live-action movies are more or less cartoons/video games/moving comics. It doesn’t really matter how convincing pseudo-humans are in those, so long as they don’t resemble monsters.

    But it’ll be a long time before they can do a convincing fake-live-action Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, or whatever, with CGI.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. OT: Another black disgruntled employee…

    LA Ties, 10/18/17 – 5 shot, 3 dead in Maryland office park shooting, gunman on the run

    State and federal authorities are searching for Radee L. Prince, 37, who they believe shot five people around 9 a.m. at a kitchen countertop company in an Edgewood business park where he had worked for the past four months. The five victims were all employees of the business, Advanced Granite Solutions…

    Prince was also being sought in connection with a shooting that occurred almost two hours later, at around 10:45 a.m., at a used car dealership…

    Prince had been fired from a job at another granite company after allegedly attacking a co-worker…

    Authorities gave a Delaware address for Prince, who attended Newark High School and had 42 arrests with 15 felony convictions and 4 misdemeanor convictions in the state, according to police…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    E, remember, SJWs don't want job applications where you have to check the box:" Have you ever been arrested or convicted of a crime?" Yeah, sure. Just another oppressed minority abused for all of four months at his new job. I am now in my 72nd year, I don't know 15 people who have been arrested, let alone, one with 15 felony convictions. It would have been a blessing if a LEO had shot this POS to death years ago.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. guest says:
    @Maj. Kong
    https://twitter.com/Scott_Wiener/status/920490440985477121

    Anyone want to start a campaign with me portraying drag queens as “female blackface?”

    I never got the idea crackers hated darkies based on minstrel shows. They were always well-meaning, if shiftless, characters. You’ll never see a touching tribute to womanhood like Old Ned from a drag queen.

    Not that female blackface is proof homos hate women. They do, but drag queens are rather proof they envy women. Even perverse, distorted funhouse mirror distortions of womanhood.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kevin C.

    Anyone want to start a campaign with me portraying drag queens as “female blackface?”
     
    I understand that at least some factions within feminism have tried, but they've generally lost the "leftier-than-thou" status struggle, and end up denounced as "TERFs".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. I don’t know about the whole replace kids with CGI thing. CGI Peter Cushing and especially CGI Carrie Fisher were kinda distracting in Rogue One. CGI Sean Young in Blade Runner 2049 wasn’t quite there either. They would look semi-believable before they spoke but as soon as they move their mouths they look like creepy dolls. Indeed, in spite of everyone talking about the great progress in CGI, most modern stuff looks worse than the realistic-looking Tyrannosaur breaking out of its paddock in the original Jurassic Park. ILM was cognizant of the fact that we can tell real from fake so they didn’t have too many big long shots of the rex in daylight, mostly just brief moments in misty darkness with closeups as an animatronic. Nowadays there’s no discretion or attempt to “hide the seams” so stuff just looks like a video-game cutscene as they’ll plop the character in broad daylight filling the entire screen. Not an ugly thing per say, just nobody is gonna confuse it for real. Nobody complains too much until human characters come along and trigger an uncanny valley effect. And I don’t think that is gonna go away. Unless your movie only requires kids in a rainstorm at night and a fair distance away, not sure you could replace them entirely (at least with technology as it is now). Though, I will admit, the de-aging stuff looks pretty real. Much more real than a different actor working as a reference for another (as was the case for Cushing/Tarkin in Rogue One).

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Rogue One was baffling. Not so much with Carrie Fisher, who had an exceedingly famous Star Wars-y face. It makes sense reproducing it for its own sake, even though it's unnecessary. She wasn't a real character in that movie, just a thing they added on to connect the story to the original Star Wars.

    Sean Young made some sense, because the character is a phony human anyway. I guess the scene was supposed to have an eerie, otherworldly quality to it, and the point was Harrison Ford's reaction. Not that such a scene was necessary. They only relied on the image of Rachael because they leaned on the previous movie like a crutch.

    Peter Cushing's character had an actual part in the plot, and important dialogue to speak. Why couldn't they just hire some old English actor who vaguely resembled him? Would anyone in the universe care it wasn't the "Real" Grand Moff Tarkin? (What is a "Moff?" Is that like an admiral? Or is "Grand Moff" his name?)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Brabantian says: • Website

    Was funny to click onto Steve’s column, as I was just reading on another site how Hamlet’s author William Shakespeare, is argued by some to have been a black person, hence his very original & social-critique perspectives

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dissident

    I was just reading on another site how Hamlet’s author William Shakespeare, is argued by some to have been a black person
     
    Did the author offer any suggestions on who some of Brother William's descendants might be? Perhaps this could even help to explain the uncanny genius of one T.N. Coates?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Oaklanders says: • Website

    The plays of William Shakespeare were written by Edward DeVere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. (Look it up, kids.) Some people get very emotional about Edward DeVere/William Shakespeare.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paul Jolliffe
    Oaklanders, you do realize your comment is "Thursday" bait.

    He'll be here, soon enough, venting away at you for noticing that "E VERy word doth almost tell my name . . ."

    (Sonnet 76)
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Actually,
    https://twitter.com/kurtisrai/status/739295719836782592
    , @whorefinder

    The plays of William Shakespeare were written by Edward DeVere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. (Look it up, kids.) Some people get very emotional about Edward DeVere/William Shakespeare.
     
    Shakespeare wrote the plays of Shakespeare. (Look it up, kid.)

    I do enjoy the Shakespeare-was-a-front-man wackos and their empty conspiracies; their ideas make the Oswald Deniers seem positively fact-based. The best part is many are of certain social groups that otherwise seem very intelligent so nobody calls them out on how idiotic they are.

    Tell me, is your conspiracy the one where DeVere committed incest with his own mother, who happened to be Queen Elizabeth, who then gave birth to thier inborn son, who happened to be Shakespeare himself ? I kid you guys not, that is actually a leading theory in the Shakespeare Conspiracy crowd.

    The convoluted nature of their factless conspiracies just proves how deep the rabbit hole goes!
    , @Alden
    That's one opinion. What do you think of the Roger Bacon theory? Or the ER 1 theory? Or the William
    Cecil theory? Or the Robert Spencer theory? Or the Duchess of Cambridge Katharine Middleton's ancestor theory? Or the feminazi theory that the plays were actually written by Shakespeare's wife, daughters or cleaning woman?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Karl says:
    @whorefinder
    For those of us who are conspiracy theorists, the dam is always about the burst, but the rivers are always carry off the excess just in the nick of time before the water comes flooding in.

    I think there will one day be revelations that trickle in, but Hollywood is pretty good at keeping secrets from all coming out at inopportune times; we only learn about who was gay in Hollywood and who was a slut decades, who was a junkie and who had severe mental problems later now, usually in tell-alls, long after many are dead or careers are finished. So it will be with the child molesters, unless the feds get involved and, you know, actually do some prosecutions. Given how poorly the FBI performs, however, it's unlikely. Hollywood studios are a monopoly who control everything in their industry; anyone who comes forward will be ignored and pushed aside after this Weinstein thing tampers down, sadly.

    Separately, much of Shakespeare was topical of its time. Take the much-maligned Richard II, which is a proto-Hamlet: an ineffective, unsure ruler/main character is constantly second guessing himself into "analysis paralysis", leading to more decisive men (Henry Bolingbroke in Richard II, Fortinbras in Hamlet) to swoop in and become rulers.

    Richard II
    was actually about then-current queen Elizabeth, who, far from the beloved legendary queen she is painted as today, was viewed as an indecisive, weak ruler. Elizabeth herself famously remarked, "I am Richard II, know ye not that?" One of the many conspiracies against Elizabeth commissioned a private performance of Richard II the night before their attempt, all to increase their morale.

    Yet these days Richard II is maligned a lot, and rarely performed. Although clunky, it is a good nuanced vision of both why a "bad" ruler is both not "evil" and yet perhaps needs to be removed for the health of the state; politics is messy. That's not to the tune of today's theater goers, who demand far less nuance---bad guys (e.g. conservatives, republicans, Trump) are just evil powermongers, don't you see? This is why Richard III, whose bad guy is just malevolent for no reason but does spectacularly bad things both via manipulation and via action, is much more popular amongst the lefty set of today.

    6 whorefinder > “I am Richard II, know ye not that?”

    I’m so old, I can remember when white people didn’t slavishly copy Africans in colloquial grammar

    When I establish my White-European-refugees village in Samaria, I will use the kindergardens to revive spoken Latin

    Will be interesting to see how that cohort of kids influences IDF slang when they reach conscription age.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. guest says:
    @Senator Brundlefly
    I don't know about the whole replace kids with CGI thing. CGI Peter Cushing and especially CGI Carrie Fisher were kinda distracting in Rogue One. CGI Sean Young in Blade Runner 2049 wasn't quite there either. They would look semi-believable before they spoke but as soon as they move their mouths they look like creepy dolls. Indeed, in spite of everyone talking about the great progress in CGI, most modern stuff looks worse than the realistic-looking Tyrannosaur breaking out of its paddock in the original Jurassic Park. ILM was cognizant of the fact that we can tell real from fake so they didn't have too many big long shots of the rex in daylight, mostly just brief moments in misty darkness with closeups as an animatronic. Nowadays there's no discretion or attempt to "hide the seams" so stuff just looks like a video-game cutscene as they'll plop the character in broad daylight filling the entire screen. Not an ugly thing per say, just nobody is gonna confuse it for real. Nobody complains too much until human characters come along and trigger an uncanny valley effect. And I don't think that is gonna go away. Unless your movie only requires kids in a rainstorm at night and a fair distance away, not sure you could replace them entirely (at least with technology as it is now). Though, I will admit, the de-aging stuff looks pretty real. Much more real than a different actor working as a reference for another (as was the case for Cushing/Tarkin in Rogue One).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oQ0E3OkaIk

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUIHzanm5Mk

    Rogue One was baffling. Not so much with Carrie Fisher, who had an exceedingly famous Star Wars-y face. It makes sense reproducing it for its own sake, even though it’s unnecessary. She wasn’t a real character in that movie, just a thing they added on to connect the story to the original Star Wars.

    Sean Young made some sense, because the character is a phony human anyway. I guess the scene was supposed to have an eerie, otherworldly quality to it, and the point was Harrison Ford’s reaction. Not that such a scene was necessary. They only relied on the image of Rachael because they leaned on the previous movie like a crutch.

    Peter Cushing’s character had an actual part in the plot, and important dialogue to speak. Why couldn’t they just hire some old English actor who vaguely resembled him? Would anyone in the universe care it wasn’t the “Real” Grand Moff Tarkin? (What is a “Moff?” Is that like an admiral? Or is “Grand Moff” his name?)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Senator Brundlefly
    Grand Moff is a political title in the Empire (governor of a sector). His first name is Wilhuff (if you really want to go down this rabbit hole, visit Wookieepedia http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wilhuff_Tarkin) . I guess they felt it was necessary to include him as he ran the Death Star in A New Hope and the whole movie was about the Death Star (though I think he could have just been mentioned off-screen or, better yet, appeared as a hologram to lessen the uncanny valley effect). As for why they didn't just get a new actor (as they did for Mon Mothma), I don't know. I guess since Tarkin is kinda iconic and this movie takes place right before the other one.

    As for Shakespeare, weren't most of his female characters played by boys whose voices hadn't changed (hence the joke of the female character disguised as a man played by a male actor saying "If I were a woman, I would kiss as many of you as had beards that pleased me, complexions that liked me, and breaths that I defied not" at the end of As You Like It)?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. J1234 says:
    @Langley
    Being against child actors is like being against child prostitutes!

    That is not who we are.

    Being against child actors is like being against child prostitutes!

    Jody Foster was only 12 when she portrayed a prostitute in Taxi Driver. The movie’s producers, in a display of concern for her welfare, made her see a shrink before they would give her the role. It seems to me the time for her to see a shrink would be after she played the role. Not only because of the role itself, but also because she might start wondering…what kind of parents would allow me to do such a thing at this age? (Or any age, really.)

    Despite all of this, it’s actually US farm children who are being exploited by society, often times helping to work the land their ancestors worked instead of playing video games and getting obese like normal kids.

    https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/11/17/child-farmworkers-united-states-worst-form-child-labor

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymouse
    Did the experience help turn Jodie Foster gay?
    , @Ivy
    All that farm worker exploitation! Think of the burden of living with a sense of accomplishment, not to mention actual skills, maturity and self-discipline, too. No wonder they are among the first to be contacted when troop levels are low.
    , @flyingtiger
    The ironic fact was that she looked older than 12, which spoiled the effect. An friend who was a bouncer told me he would have never carded her. We also noted actresses at the time who were above the age of consent but looked younger than m.s Foster.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @E. Rekshun
    OT: Another black disgruntled employee...

    LA Ties, 10/18/17 - 5 shot, 3 dead in Maryland office park shooting, gunman on the run

    State and federal authorities are searching for Radee L. Prince, 37, who they believe shot five people around 9 a.m. at a kitchen countertop company in an Edgewood business park where he had worked for the past four months. The five victims were all employees of the business, Advanced Granite Solutions...

    Prince was also being sought in connection with a shooting that occurred almost two hours later, at around 10:45 a.m., at a used car dealership...

    Prince had been fired from a job at another granite company after allegedly attacking a co-worker...

    Authorities gave a Delaware address for Prince, who attended Newark High School and had 42 arrests with 15 felony convictions and 4 misdemeanor convictions in the state, according to police...
     

    E, remember, SJWs don’t want job applications where you have to check the box:” Have you ever been arrested or convicted of a crime?” Yeah, sure. Just another oppressed minority abused for all of four months at his new job. I am now in my 72nd year, I don’t know 15 people who have been arrested, let alone, one with 15 felony convictions. It would have been a blessing if a LEO had shot this POS to death years ago.

    Read More
    • Agree: E. Rekshun
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. an eaglet is an eaglet an eyass is baby hawk taken from the nest for training before it fledges causing it to imprint on the falconer.
    those who carry rapiers are carrying short swords I wouldnt say in shakespeare’s time that would have been an affectation of a dandy as perhaps it might be a few hundred years later, he uses it in contrast to a quill or pen vs sword.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. @Oaklanders
    The plays of William Shakespeare were written by Edward DeVere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. (Look it up, kids.) Some people get very emotional about Edward DeVere/William Shakespeare.

    Oaklanders, you do realize your comment is “Thursday” bait.

    He’ll be here, soon enough, venting away at you for noticing that “E VERy word doth almost tell my name . . .”

    (Sonnet 76)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @J1234

    Being against child actors is like being against child prostitutes!
     
    Jody Foster was only 12 when she portrayed a prostitute in Taxi Driver. The movie's producers, in a display of concern for her welfare, made her see a shrink before they would give her the role. It seems to me the time for her to see a shrink would be after she played the role. Not only because of the role itself, but also because she might start wondering...what kind of parents would allow me to do such a thing at this age? (Or any age, really.)

    Despite all of this, it's actually US farm children who are being exploited by society, often times helping to work the land their ancestors worked instead of playing video games and getting obese like normal kids.

    https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/11/17/child-farmworkers-united-states-worst-form-child-labor

    Did the experience help turn Jodie Foster gay?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Being in a movie about a wacko shooting a presidential candidate to impress a girl probably inspired that guy to shoot President Reagan to impress poor Jodie Foster. That's a pretty massive psychological burden to drop on a young woman: some wacko you've never seen as tried to act out your most famous movie by killing the President.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @Anonymouse
    Did the experience help turn Jodie Foster gay?

    Being in a movie about a wacko shooting a presidential candidate to impress a girl probably inspired that guy to shoot President Reagan to impress poor Jodie Foster. That’s a pretty massive psychological burden to drop on a young woman: some wacko you’ve never seen as tried to act out your most famous movie by killing the President.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SMK
    You can't drink alcohol and join the NFL and so forth until age 21. Legally positing adulthood at age 18 is arbitrary but not totally irrational. At age 18, one graduates from high school, can attend college live independently of one's parents, join the military, etc. But what is magical about age 21? Why not 20 or 22? What happens, magically, when the clock strikes 12 AM on one's 21st birthday?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. aonymous says:

    Is there a forthcoming film from the Weinsteins called “The Couch” ?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. Ivy says:
    @J1234

    Being against child actors is like being against child prostitutes!
     
    Jody Foster was only 12 when she portrayed a prostitute in Taxi Driver. The movie's producers, in a display of concern for her welfare, made her see a shrink before they would give her the role. It seems to me the time for her to see a shrink would be after she played the role. Not only because of the role itself, but also because she might start wondering...what kind of parents would allow me to do such a thing at this age? (Or any age, really.)

    Despite all of this, it's actually US farm children who are being exploited by society, often times helping to work the land their ancestors worked instead of playing video games and getting obese like normal kids.

    https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/11/17/child-farmworkers-united-states-worst-form-child-labor

    All that farm worker exploitation! Think of the burden of living with a sense of accomplishment, not to mention actual skills, maturity and self-discipline, too. No wonder they are among the first to be contacted when troop levels are low.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @guest
    Rogue One was baffling. Not so much with Carrie Fisher, who had an exceedingly famous Star Wars-y face. It makes sense reproducing it for its own sake, even though it's unnecessary. She wasn't a real character in that movie, just a thing they added on to connect the story to the original Star Wars.

    Sean Young made some sense, because the character is a phony human anyway. I guess the scene was supposed to have an eerie, otherworldly quality to it, and the point was Harrison Ford's reaction. Not that such a scene was necessary. They only relied on the image of Rachael because they leaned on the previous movie like a crutch.

    Peter Cushing's character had an actual part in the plot, and important dialogue to speak. Why couldn't they just hire some old English actor who vaguely resembled him? Would anyone in the universe care it wasn't the "Real" Grand Moff Tarkin? (What is a "Moff?" Is that like an admiral? Or is "Grand Moff" his name?)

    Grand Moff is a political title in the Empire (governor of a sector). His first name is Wilhuff (if you really want to go down this rabbit hole, visit Wookieepedia http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wilhuff_Tarkin) . I guess they felt it was necessary to include him as he ran the Death Star in A New Hope and the whole movie was about the Death Star (though I think he could have just been mentioned off-screen or, better yet, appeared as a hologram to lessen the uncanny valley effect). As for why they didn’t just get a new actor (as they did for Mon Mothma), I don’t know. I guess since Tarkin is kinda iconic and this movie takes place right before the other one.

    As for Shakespeare, weren’t most of his female characters played by boys whose voices hadn’t changed (hence the joke of the female character disguised as a man played by a male actor saying “If I were a woman, I would kiss as many of you as had beards that pleased me, complexions that liked me, and breaths that I defied not” at the end of As You Like It)?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Oaklanders
    The plays of William Shakespeare were written by Edward DeVere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. (Look it up, kids.) Some people get very emotional about Edward DeVere/William Shakespeare.

    Actually,

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    It's so sad that some black people are so jealous of non-black accomplishment that they propound this nonsense and culturally appropriate as much as they think good. The Egyptian nonsense was humorous enough, but the Shakespeare/Vikings/Beethoven stuff really makes you giggle.
    , @Jack D
    I don't know who that pickaninny in the picture is but it ain't Bassano.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilia_Lanier

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/Nicholas_Hilliard_010.jpg/1200px-Nicholas_Hilliard_010.jpg

    She was of partial Sephardic Jewish descent and I guess in Shakespeare's England would have been darker than most (not many Brits with wavy dark brown hair) but she was no sistah.

    Blacks (and gays - I swear that Gore Vidal thought everyone he met was secretly gay) seem to be willing to claim anyone from "Africa" or described as "dark" as being from their team (I guess because they have so few legitimately black heroes outside of sports). Historically (and Arab slavery muddled this a little) North Africans were a Mediterranean people similar to Greeks or Southern Italians and were a totally different thing than sub-Saharan Bantus who make up the American slave descendants.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. whorefinder says: • Website
    @Oaklanders
    The plays of William Shakespeare were written by Edward DeVere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. (Look it up, kids.) Some people get very emotional about Edward DeVere/William Shakespeare.

    The plays of William Shakespeare were written by Edward DeVere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. (Look it up, kids.) Some people get very emotional about Edward DeVere/William Shakespeare.

    Shakespeare wrote the plays of Shakespeare. (Look it up, kid.)

    I do enjoy the Shakespeare-was-a-front-man wackos and their empty conspiracies; their ideas make the Oswald Deniers seem positively fact-based. The best part is many are of certain social groups that otherwise seem very intelligent so nobody calls them out on how idiotic they are.

    Tell me, is your conspiracy the one where DeVere committed incest with his own mother, who happened to be Queen Elizabeth, who then gave birth to thier inborn son, who happened to be Shakespeare himself ? I kid you guys not, that is actually a leading theory in the Shakespeare Conspiracy crowd.

    The convoluted nature of their factless conspiracies just proves how deep the rabbit hole goes!

    Read More
    • Replies: @jim jones
    The internet lets people expose their Idée fixes to the rest of us, look at the obsession with stuff like chemtrails on UR.
    , @guest
    "the Shakespeare-was-a-front-man wackos and their empty conspiracies; their ideas..."

    Besides Shakespeare lacking education, travel experience, and opportunity to mingle with the upper class,* the evidence I hear is usually that life of DeVere or whoever lines up with key events in the plays. As if the only way to write plays is as veiled autobiography. That's more a modern impulse, or at least a post-romantic one.

    "many are of certain social groups that otherwise seem very intelligent so nobody calls them out on how idiotic they are"

    One of my intellectual heroes, Joe Sobran, wrote a book called Alias Shakespeare. I haven't read it, but I know he's an "Oxfordian," i.e. believer in Shakespeare not being *the* Shakespeare. It can happen to anyone.

    *Thing about Shakespeare is that when doctors read his plays, they insist it must have been written by someone learned in medicine. When lawyers read him, they insist he must have known the law. When musicians read him, Shakespeare must have been a musician. And on and on.

    That's something only geniuses and con men can pull off: convincing everyone they know everything about everything.
    , @anon
    Queen Elizabeth was born in 1533, Shakespeare in 1564.
    Are you sure you didn't just invent your story of Elizabeth having a child to her own son at the age of 31, then threw Oswald into the recipe?
    , @Oaklanders
    As I said, people get emotional. Whoever wrote the plays had an education greater than that of William Shakespeare. His funeral was unnoticed in London. His children did not act as if they had a famous father. Doubts about who really wrote the plays are nearly as old as the plays themselves. Two pro Edward DeVere books: Alias Shakespeare by Joseph Sobran and The Mysterious William Shakespeare by Charlton Ogburn
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. whorefinder says: • Website
    @Dave Pinsen
    Actually,
    https://twitter.com/kurtisrai/status/739295719836782592

    It’s so sad that some black people are so jealous of non-black accomplishment that they propound this nonsense and culturally appropriate as much as they think good. The Egyptian nonsense was humorous enough, but the Shakespeare/Vikings/Beethoven stuff really makes you giggle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pericles
    The kang rapper of the world, Eminem, is actually white. Pass it on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @J1234

    Being against child actors is like being against child prostitutes!
     
    Jody Foster was only 12 when she portrayed a prostitute in Taxi Driver. The movie's producers, in a display of concern for her welfare, made her see a shrink before they would give her the role. It seems to me the time for her to see a shrink would be after she played the role. Not only because of the role itself, but also because she might start wondering...what kind of parents would allow me to do such a thing at this age? (Or any age, really.)

    Despite all of this, it's actually US farm children who are being exploited by society, often times helping to work the land their ancestors worked instead of playing video games and getting obese like normal kids.

    https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/11/17/child-farmworkers-united-states-worst-form-child-labor

    The ironic fact was that she looked older than 12, which spoiled the effect. An friend who was a bouncer told me he would have never carded her. We also noted actresses at the time who were above the age of consent but looked younger than m.s Foster.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pericles
    I guess Hollywood child acting ages you prematurely.
    , @Alden
    Foster is the size of a 12 year old, but child street walker prostitutes try to look older. Most 12 year old girls are only a couple inches and a few pounds away from their size at 20.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Apparently, in Shakespeare’s day – and right up to the English Restoration – there were no female actresses appearing on the English stage. All female parts were played by pre-pubescent boys in drag. The thespian profession for females was considered ‘unrespectable’, thus to accord with contemporary standards of decency, theatrical companies never countenanced the notion of genuine female actresses.
    This changed by the time of King Charles II in the mid 17th century. However, many of the leading actresses of the day apparently ‘doubled-up’ as ‘courtesans’ to very rich and powerful men, eg, Nell Gwynn, – not only paralleling today’s Weinstein scandal, but basing in truth the Elizabethan prohibition against women on the stage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    I've also thought, in light of the Weinstein scandal, that there probably was a basis for the belief that acting was not a respectable profession for women.

    The attitude persisted. I remember the lines from Evita when the Argentine military is complaining about Juan Peron's taking up with Eva:

    And she's an actress; the last straw!
    , @Pericles

    Apparently, in Shakespeare’s day – and right up to the English Restoration – there were no female actresses appearing on the English stage. All female parts were played by pre-pubescent boys in drag.

     

    This was because actresses universally were hookers in the era before that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I don’t know. It depends on the kid. Child actors, a lot of them, tend to be wise beyond their years. They tend to be early blossomers.

    The number #1 film at the box office for over 3 weeks was “It”, based on the Stephen King book about the Eldrich horror figure that terrorized childred with their worst fears before eating them. The Swedish actor, Bill Skarsgard, who plays the role of It’s avatar, Pennywise the dancing clown, commented about this, when during a scene where Pennywise gets in the face of a kid and starts taunting him, the boy was crying and he became preocupide about it, and said to himself “OMG, I am brutalizing this child.”. But when the scene ended, the kid actor turned to him and said:

    “Love what you’re doing with the character!”

    Bill Skarsgard is amazing. Anyways,m the child actors acquitted themselves quite well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. @Anonymous
    Apparently, in Shakespeare's day - and right up to the English Restoration - there were no female actresses appearing on the English stage. All female parts were played by pre-pubescent boys in drag. The thespian profession for females was considered 'unrespectable', thus to accord with contemporary standards of decency, theatrical companies never countenanced the notion of genuine female actresses.
    This changed by the time of King Charles II in the mid 17th century. However, many of the leading actresses of the day apparently 'doubled-up' as 'courtesans' to very rich and powerful men, eg, Nell Gwynn, - not only paralleling today's Weinstein scandal, but basing in truth the Elizabethan prohibition against women on the stage.

    I’ve also thought, in light of the Weinstein scandal, that there probably was a basis for the belief that acting was not a respectable profession for women.

    The attitude persisted. I remember the lines from Evita when the Argentine military is complaining about Juan Peron’s taking up with Eva:

    And she’s an actress; the last straw!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. jim jones says:
    @whorefinder

    The plays of William Shakespeare were written by Edward DeVere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. (Look it up, kids.) Some people get very emotional about Edward DeVere/William Shakespeare.
     
    Shakespeare wrote the plays of Shakespeare. (Look it up, kid.)

    I do enjoy the Shakespeare-was-a-front-man wackos and their empty conspiracies; their ideas make the Oswald Deniers seem positively fact-based. The best part is many are of certain social groups that otherwise seem very intelligent so nobody calls them out on how idiotic they are.

    Tell me, is your conspiracy the one where DeVere committed incest with his own mother, who happened to be Queen Elizabeth, who then gave birth to thier inborn son, who happened to be Shakespeare himself ? I kid you guys not, that is actually a leading theory in the Shakespeare Conspiracy crowd.

    The convoluted nature of their factless conspiracies just proves how deep the rabbit hole goes!

    The internet lets people expose their Idée fixes to the rest of us, look at the obsession with stuff like chemtrails on UR.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    That late, great British comedian, Benny Hill, encapsulated the essence of Weinstein, and what might be termed ‘weinsteinism’, perfectly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pericles
    Benny Hill wasn't seeking sexual revenge on the shiksas.
    , @whorefinder
    lmao. Comparing Benny Hill to Harvey Weinstein is literally comparing a man who likes to watch chicks run around in bikinis---i.e. 99% of all men---- to a rapist.

    Argument fail!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. guest says:
    @whorefinder

    The plays of William Shakespeare were written by Edward DeVere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. (Look it up, kids.) Some people get very emotional about Edward DeVere/William Shakespeare.
     
    Shakespeare wrote the plays of Shakespeare. (Look it up, kid.)

    I do enjoy the Shakespeare-was-a-front-man wackos and their empty conspiracies; their ideas make the Oswald Deniers seem positively fact-based. The best part is many are of certain social groups that otherwise seem very intelligent so nobody calls them out on how idiotic they are.

    Tell me, is your conspiracy the one where DeVere committed incest with his own mother, who happened to be Queen Elizabeth, who then gave birth to thier inborn son, who happened to be Shakespeare himself ? I kid you guys not, that is actually a leading theory in the Shakespeare Conspiracy crowd.

    The convoluted nature of their factless conspiracies just proves how deep the rabbit hole goes!

    “the Shakespeare-was-a-front-man wackos and their empty conspiracies; their ideas…”

    Besides Shakespeare lacking education, travel experience, and opportunity to mingle with the upper class,* the evidence I hear is usually that life of DeVere or whoever lines up with key events in the plays. As if the only way to write plays is as veiled autobiography. That’s more a modern impulse, or at least a post-romantic one.

    “many are of certain social groups that otherwise seem very intelligent so nobody calls them out on how idiotic they are”

    One of my intellectual heroes, Joe Sobran, wrote a book called Alias Shakespeare. I haven’t read it, but I know he’s an “Oxfordian,” i.e. believer in Shakespeare not being *the* Shakespeare. It can happen to anyone.

    *Thing about Shakespeare is that when doctors read his plays, they insist it must have been written by someone learned in medicine. When lawyers read him, they insist he must have known the law. When musicians read him, Shakespeare must have been a musician. And on and on.

    That’s something only geniuses and con men can pull off: convincing everyone they know everything about everything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @vinteuil
    *Alias Shakespeare* is well worth a read. It won't convince you, but you'll learn a lot of crazy stuff that gets you more & more interested in the plays and, especially, the sonnets.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. In “Hamlet,” the main character appears to be either 16 or 30. A plausible theory is that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet to be 16 (which meant that his mother could be in her early 30s and likely to bear a rival heir to Hamlet to her new husband), but that his lead actor Richard Burbage, who was probably in his early 30s, objected, so Shakespeare added a line making his age 30.

    But that makes his mother too old to have a child by her new husband, so Hamlet would appear to be in line to inherit the throne when his uncle dies, so what’s his problem? But then how did a 30 year old crown prince get squeezed out of the succession, since 30 would be about the ideal age for a new king?

    I’ve never heard of a 16 year old actor playing Hamlet, though. The internet says the youngest Hamlet at Stratford was 24 year old David Warner.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Hamlet's age is set at exactly 30 in the graveyard scene (Act 5, Scene 1). The gravedigger says he took up his profession the year Hamlet Jr. was born, 30 years before.

    On the other hand, Hamlet is made out to be a college student, they're always calling him "young," the crown went to his uncle instead of himself for no good reason, etc. He's supposed to be around the same age as Laertes, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern, none of whom appear to be 30. Polonius' advice to Laertes would be ridiculous were the latter 30.

    Shakespeare's plays, despite their genius, are full of holes and contradictions.

    , @englishmike

    In “Hamlet,” the main character appears to be either 16 or 30.
     
    It doesn't have to be either/or. Another possibility is that he is initially presented as being in his teens but then the playwright "ages" (matures) him during the play, specifying his precise age only when he returns from England in Act V.

    A plausible theory is that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet to be 16 ... but that his lead actor Richard Burbage, who was probably in his early 30s, objected, so Shakespeare added a line making his age 30.
     
    Yes, plausible. But would Shakespeare want to abandon his obvious intention to present him as "young Hamlet"? A.C.Bradley wondered whether that phrase was merely intended to distinguish him from his late father, "Old Hamlet". I'm not convinced. Besides, age thirty at the time would have been virtually "middle aged". Would Hamlet still have been at university at age 30?

    ...so Hamlet would appear to be in line to inherit the throne when his uncle dies, so what’s his problem?
     
    Hamlet: Aye, but "While the grass grows..." The proverb is something musty.

    He seems to be frustrated at the prospect of hanging around Elsinore for years waiting for Claudius to shuffle off this mortal coil. Of course, that's only one of his problems.

    But then how did a 30 year old crown prince get squeezed out of the succession, since 30 would be about the ideal age for a new king?
     
    Claudius "popped in between the election and my hopes". This suggests that:
    1. Hamlet had hoped to be King;
    2. he felt cheated out of the throne by Claudius;
    3. in Elsinore the succession from father to son was apparently not a foregone conclusion: there had to be an election, presumably by the nobility;
    4. these electors were probably "persuaded" to elect Claudius. He admits in soliloquy that the "effects for which I did the murder" were "my crown, mine own ambition and my Queen". I would suspect a lot of scheming, bribery and arm-twisting in order to win the election. Polonius would have been a crucial ally at that stage.

    So my hypothesis – which I cannot prove – is that Shakespeare wanted to present Hamlet at the start of the play as an emotionally vulnerable young man of university-student age who, through this unusually lengthy and eventful play, develops into a more mature, reflective character who becomes, in the final act, world-weary and resigned to whatever fate has in store for him. The years between his age in Act 1 and his age 30 in Act V, along with what the dialogue shows us, are enough to convey this character development.

    I think it's unnecessary to suppose, as Bradley and some others do, that Hamlet begins the play as a 30-year-old. The fact that Burbage was a bit mature to play a young student was less important in a theatre where the audience were used to gaining their information about the characters mainly from the dialogue* (They were also used to accepting males playing females, even in love scenes, and night-time scenes being played in daylight).

    *During a visit to New York I saw Puccini's La Boheme at the Met, at which the audience (as they have to) accepted the convention that a group of students were played and sung by beefy middle aged opera stars.
    And look at the schoolkids in Grease...!
    In fact (to return more closely to your original topic for this thread), isn't there something of a tradition in the movies for having students played by inappropriately-aged actors?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @whorefinder

    The plays of William Shakespeare were written by Edward DeVere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. (Look it up, kids.) Some people get very emotional about Edward DeVere/William Shakespeare.
     
    Shakespeare wrote the plays of Shakespeare. (Look it up, kid.)

    I do enjoy the Shakespeare-was-a-front-man wackos and their empty conspiracies; their ideas make the Oswald Deniers seem positively fact-based. The best part is many are of certain social groups that otherwise seem very intelligent so nobody calls them out on how idiotic they are.

    Tell me, is your conspiracy the one where DeVere committed incest with his own mother, who happened to be Queen Elizabeth, who then gave birth to thier inborn son, who happened to be Shakespeare himself ? I kid you guys not, that is actually a leading theory in the Shakespeare Conspiracy crowd.

    The convoluted nature of their factless conspiracies just proves how deep the rabbit hole goes!

    Queen Elizabeth was born in 1533, Shakespeare in 1564.
    Are you sure you didn’t just invent your story of Elizabeth having a child to her own son at the age of 31, then threw Oswald into the recipe?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    I tried to find the name of this book I read but failed. A man last name Beauchamp who is a descendant of the Earls of Oxford wrote a book claiming ER1 had three sons, one at the age of 45.

    First son Thomas Seymour was the father. She was about 14. Baby boy smuggled away and adopted as oldest son and heir by the young Earl and Countess of Oxford who had not yet had children.

    Baby boy comes to court when he is 15 and ER1 is about 30. They have sex and she again has a boy. Her son quickly marries and he and wife adopt the boy .

    Baby boy grows up goes to court at 15 and has sex with 45 year old ER1 who has a baby boy. This baby boy is ER 1's grandson and heir to the earldom of Oxford.

    The author also brings up the theory than Anne Boleyn was actually Henry 8's daughter.
    , @whorefinder

    Queen Elizabeth was born in 1533, Shakespeare in 1564.
    Are you sure you didn’t just invent your story of Elizabeth having a child to her own son at the age of 31, then threw Oswald into the recipe?
     
    lol. Dude, that is literally the Oxfordian theory, one of the biggest among Shakespeare Denialists, and was dramatized in Roland Emmerich's Hollywood movie Anonymous

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Anonymous_%28film%29

    You can try to weasel out of it, but the fact remains: the Shakespeare Denialists counter-hypotheses are so wacky, and are replete with such lies about Shakespeare, that you have to have a splinter in your mind to believe in them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Pericles says:
    @Maj. Kong
    https://twitter.com/Scott_Wiener/status/920490440985477121

    Click through to get a better look at (((Scott Wiener))), California State Senator, and you will see he could easily become a satanic tranny himself. He’s currently merely a homosexual Jew.

    Wiener is also behind the recent pro-HIV-spreading law of California and, prior to that, was publically taking Truvada, a compound to reduce the risk of getting HIV.

    Basically a crazy person who gets to lord it over Clown World. Please join his annual children’s pumpkin carving contest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl
    39 Pericles > (((Scott Wiener))), California State Senator


    I read about a certain famous alt-right blogger who could likely find a way to get the foxtrot out of California.... but doesn't

    One is reminded of all those loud-mouthed zionists who continue to actually live in comfortable precincts of .... Brookline MA
    , @Dissident
    Just how, exactly, is the fact that Scott Wiener is a Jew relevant here?

    Are brazen, buggering, degenerate, Sodomite, Cultural Marxist termites okay (or at least less objectionable) as long as they are not Jewish?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Pericles says:
    @whorefinder
    It's so sad that some black people are so jealous of non-black accomplishment that they propound this nonsense and culturally appropriate as much as they think good. The Egyptian nonsense was humorous enough, but the Shakespeare/Vikings/Beethoven stuff really makes you giggle.

    The kang rapper of the world, Eminem, is actually white. Pass it on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Pericles says:
    @flyingtiger
    The ironic fact was that she looked older than 12, which spoiled the effect. An friend who was a bouncer told me he would have never carded her. We also noted actresses at the time who were above the age of consent but looked younger than m.s Foster.

    I guess Hollywood child acting ages you prematurely.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Pericles says:
    @Anonymous
    Apparently, in Shakespeare's day - and right up to the English Restoration - there were no female actresses appearing on the English stage. All female parts were played by pre-pubescent boys in drag. The thespian profession for females was considered 'unrespectable', thus to accord with contemporary standards of decency, theatrical companies never countenanced the notion of genuine female actresses.
    This changed by the time of King Charles II in the mid 17th century. However, many of the leading actresses of the day apparently 'doubled-up' as 'courtesans' to very rich and powerful men, eg, Nell Gwynn, - not only paralleling today's Weinstein scandal, but basing in truth the Elizabethan prohibition against women on the stage.

    Apparently, in Shakespeare’s day – and right up to the English Restoration – there were no female actresses appearing on the English stage. All female parts were played by pre-pubescent boys in drag.

    This was because actresses universally were hookers in the era before that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Pericles says:
    @Anonymous
    That late, great British comedian, Benny Hill, encapsulated the essence of Weinstein, and what might be termed 'weinsteinism', perfectly.

    Benny Hill wasn’t seeking sexual revenge on the shiksas.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Tim Howells
    I would love to believe that elite pedophilia is the next shoe to drop, but I'm not holding my breath.

    Look at it this way. Time the elites do not spend screwing children is time they have to screw the rest of us. It’s a small price to pay.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. guest says:
    @Steve Sailer
    In "Hamlet," the main character appears to be either 16 or 30. A plausible theory is that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet to be 16 (which meant that his mother could be in her early 30s and likely to bear a rival heir to Hamlet to her new husband), but that his lead actor Richard Burbage, who was probably in his early 30s, objected, so Shakespeare added a line making his age 30.

    But that makes his mother too old to have a child by her new husband, so Hamlet would appear to be in line to inherit the throne when his uncle dies, so what's his problem? But then how did a 30 year old crown prince get squeezed out of the succession, since 30 would be about the ideal age for a new king?

    I've never heard of a 16 year old actor playing Hamlet, though. The internet says the youngest Hamlet at Stratford was 24 year old David Warner.

    Hamlet’s age is set at exactly 30 in the graveyard scene (Act 5, Scene 1). The gravedigger says he took up his profession the year Hamlet Jr. was born, 30 years before.

    On the other hand, Hamlet is made out to be a college student, they’re always calling him “young,” the crown went to his uncle instead of himself for no good reason, etc. He’s supposed to be around the same age as Laertes, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern, none of whom appear to be 30. Polonius’ advice to Laertes would be ridiculous were the latter 30.

    Shakespeare’s plays, despite their genius, are full of holes and contradictions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @whorefinder
    For those of us who are conspiracy theorists, the dam is always about the burst, but the rivers are always carry off the excess just in the nick of time before the water comes flooding in.

    I think there will one day be revelations that trickle in, but Hollywood is pretty good at keeping secrets from all coming out at inopportune times; we only learn about who was gay in Hollywood and who was a slut decades, who was a junkie and who had severe mental problems later now, usually in tell-alls, long after many are dead or careers are finished. So it will be with the child molesters, unless the feds get involved and, you know, actually do some prosecutions. Given how poorly the FBI performs, however, it's unlikely. Hollywood studios are a monopoly who control everything in their industry; anyone who comes forward will be ignored and pushed aside after this Weinstein thing tampers down, sadly.

    Separately, much of Shakespeare was topical of its time. Take the much-maligned Richard II, which is a proto-Hamlet: an ineffective, unsure ruler/main character is constantly second guessing himself into "analysis paralysis", leading to more decisive men (Henry Bolingbroke in Richard II, Fortinbras in Hamlet) to swoop in and become rulers.

    Richard II
    was actually about then-current queen Elizabeth, who, far from the beloved legendary queen she is painted as today, was viewed as an indecisive, weak ruler. Elizabeth herself famously remarked, "I am Richard II, know ye not that?" One of the many conspiracies against Elizabeth commissioned a private performance of Richard II the night before their attempt, all to increase their morale.

    Yet these days Richard II is maligned a lot, and rarely performed. Although clunky, it is a good nuanced vision of both why a "bad" ruler is both not "evil" and yet perhaps needs to be removed for the health of the state; politics is messy. That's not to the tune of today's theater goers, who demand far less nuance---bad guys (e.g. conservatives, republicans, Trump) are just evil powermongers, don't you see? This is why Richard III, whose bad guy is just malevolent for no reason but does spectacularly bad things both via manipulation and via action, is much more popular amongst the lefty set of today.

    For those of us who are conspiracy theorists, the dam is always about the burst

    The dam actually burst in Belgium in the Marc Dutroux case. It’s a small enough country and the number of kidnapped children was large enough that there were massive protests in the streets that paralysed the country for a few days. Still nothing lasting came of it!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. SMK says: • Website
    @Tim Howells
    I would love to believe that elite pedophilia is the next shoe to drop, but I'm not holding my breath.

    What do you mean by “pedophilia” -consensual sex between adults (those age 18 and older) and “children” (including biological men and women under age 18)? A pedophile is a man (including adolescent males under age 18 who are absurdly defined as “children”) with a sexual fixation on and obsession with prepubescent children. The ultimate absurdity is demonizing women as “rapists” and “pedophiles” for allowing biological men under age 18 to penetrate them in factually consensual relationships -but only if they’re 4-5 years older than their “victims” -the only crime in which the “victims” enjoy the actus reus (i.e. the ses) more than the women who “rape” and “molest” them and are often if not usually the aggressors and initiators of their phantasmal and theoretical “victimization.” It’s debatable if a women can even be a pedophile under the APA definition.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "It's debatable if a woman can even be a pedophile under the APA definition."

    No, it's not. Aside from the fact that many prepubescent males are physically capable of full intercourse, pedophilia includes fantasies as well as sexual acts involving children roughly 13 and under. I assure you, a majority of molestation cases are female on male, for the simple reason that women have far easier access to children. Unless I'm to believe they're all messing with kids out of detached scientific interest, or some other nonsexual motivation, of course it's possible for women to be pedophiles.
    , @guest
    I realize, of course, acting out sexually on children and being a pedophile aren't the same thing. Some pedophiles never act, and some people who have sex with children aren't pedophiles. But of all the women who molest, have intercourse with, or merely fantasize about children sexually, none of them are pedophiles? That's a ridiculous notion.

    It would require feminist levels of chutzpah to lay the diagnosis at men's feet alone. Like how some people think you can't be a rapist if you don't have a penis. In which case the DSM would be worthless propaganda. (If it isn't anyway.)

    , @Tim Howells
    Sure there are grey areas as with everything. I'm not concerned about jail-bait. I'm concerned about elite pedophile rings trafficing in very small children as seen in e.g. the Marc Dutroux case I referenced above, the Jimmy Savile case, the Isle of Jersey, the Franklin Credit Union, Johnny Gosch etc etc.
    , @Dissident
    I agree that sexual intimacy between an adolescent male and an adult female is quite different than either (a) the converse (i.e., between an adolescent female and adult male) or (b) homosexual intimacy between an adolescent and an adult. And I do believe that in at least many cases, women who indulge in the forbidden delights of consensually cavorting with a freshly virile and still tender adolescent male are punished to a degree that far exceeds any justice or sense.

    That does not mean, however, that such intimacy and such unions and relationships (i.e., between an adult female and an adolescent male) are entirely without any concerns or potentially serious problems. (Some of these are mentioned in a podcast on this very topic that I came across and listened to a while back: Weimerica Weekly – Episode 28 – Horny Teachers)

    Commenter SMK appears to make no distinction between adolescents and adults, as evidenced in his pointed, repeated use of the term "biological adults". Yes, physiologically/reproductively, a post-pubescent adolescent may be fully sexually mature. But mentally and emotionally, an adolescent, by definition, does not possess the maturity of an adult. Such factors, along with any number of other variables, can vary greatly between cases. We must examine and consider each case on an individual basis.

    Might there even be some cases in which an argument could be made for expressly encouraging sexual intimacy between an adult female and an adolescent male? I can imagine at least one such possible case: That where the was less-than-certain or confident about his sexual orientation and the goal of the intimacy with the woman would be to steer the boy toward healthful, normative heterosexuality. This is an idea that I think should be considered and studied.

    Between the hysteria, preening and moral panic that SMK decries, at one extreme, and his excessive reaction, at the other, there would appear to lie much ground.

    SMK wrote:


    It’s debatable if a women can even be a pedophile under the APA definition.
     
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pedophilia

    pedophilia

    [ped-uh-fil-ee-uh or, esp. British, pee-duh-]

    noun, Psychiatry.
    1.
    sexual desire in an adult for a child.
     

    While I'm sure that the APA definition is more detailed and complex, I find it difficult to imagine that it would preclude the basic dictionary definition that I quoted above.

    Surely, you would not deny that there are women (however few in numbers they may be) who have a persistent sexual desire for prepubertal children? How could such women, regardless of whatever else one may think of them, not be considered pedophiles?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Mr. Anon says:

    My new Harvey Weinstein-related column in Taki’s Magazine, “The Overlord of Oscar Bait,…..”

    Oscarbait? Is that what Weinstein was accused of doing?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. SMK says: • Website
    @Steve Sailer
    Being in a movie about a wacko shooting a presidential candidate to impress a girl probably inspired that guy to shoot President Reagan to impress poor Jodie Foster. That's a pretty massive psychological burden to drop on a young woman: some wacko you've never seen as tried to act out your most famous movie by killing the President.

    You can’t drink alcohol and join the NFL and so forth until age 21. Legally positing adulthood at age 18 is arbitrary but not totally irrational. At age 18, one graduates from high school, can attend college live independently of one’s parents, join the military, etc. But what is magical about age 21? Why not 20 or 22? What happens, magically, when the clock strikes 12 AM on one’s 21st birthday?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Kevin C. says:
    @guest
    Anyone want to start a campaign with me portraying drag queens as "female blackface?"

    I never got the idea crackers hated darkies based on minstrel shows. They were always well-meaning, if shiftless, characters. You'll never see a touching tribute to womanhood like Old Ned from a drag queen.

    Not that female blackface is proof homos hate women. They do, but drag queens are rather proof they envy women. Even perverse, distorted funhouse mirror distortions of womanhood.

    Anyone want to start a campaign with me portraying drag queens as “female blackface?”

    I understand that at least some factions within feminism have tried, but they’ve generally lost the “leftier-than-thou” status struggle, and end up denounced as “TERFs”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Alden says:
    @Oaklanders
    The plays of William Shakespeare were written by Edward DeVere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. (Look it up, kids.) Some people get very emotional about Edward DeVere/William Shakespeare.

    That’s one opinion. What do you think of the Roger Bacon theory? Or the ER 1 theory? Or the William
    Cecil theory? Or the Robert Spencer theory? Or the Duchess of Cambridge Katharine Middleton’s ancestor theory? Or the feminazi theory that the plays were actually written by Shakespeare’s wife, daughters or cleaning woman?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Roger Bacon theory
     
    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/progressive-russian-empire/#comment-2023071
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Alden says:
    @flyingtiger
    The ironic fact was that she looked older than 12, which spoiled the effect. An friend who was a bouncer told me he would have never carded her. We also noted actresses at the time who were above the age of consent but looked younger than m.s Foster.

    Foster is the size of a 12 year old, but child street walker prostitutes try to look older. Most 12 year old girls are only a couple inches and a few pounds away from their size at 20.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Alden says:
    @anon
    Queen Elizabeth was born in 1533, Shakespeare in 1564.
    Are you sure you didn't just invent your story of Elizabeth having a child to her own son at the age of 31, then threw Oswald into the recipe?

    I tried to find the name of this book I read but failed. A man last name Beauchamp who is a descendant of the Earls of Oxford wrote a book claiming ER1 had three sons, one at the age of 45.

    First son Thomas Seymour was the father. She was about 14. Baby boy smuggled away and adopted as oldest son and heir by the young Earl and Countess of Oxford who had not yet had children.

    Baby boy comes to court when he is 15 and ER1 is about 30. They have sex and she again has a boy. Her son quickly marries and he and wife adopt the boy .

    Baby boy grows up goes to court at 15 and has sex with 45 year old ER1 who has a baby boy. This baby boy is ER 1′s grandson and heir to the earldom of Oxford.

    The author also brings up the theory than Anne Boleyn was actually Henry 8′s daughter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Perhaps we should change the name of our oldest settlement from Virginia to a more appropriate lady's name, one that was popular with the Puritans: the Commonwealth of Experience.

    https://www.behindthename.com/submit/names/usage/puritan
    https://www.behindthename.com/name/experience/submitted
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. MEH 0910 says:
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. whorefinder says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    That late, great British comedian, Benny Hill, encapsulated the essence of Weinstein, and what might be termed 'weinsteinism', perfectly.

    lmao. Comparing Benny Hill to Harvey Weinstein is literally comparing a man who likes to watch chicks run around in bikinis—i.e. 99% of all men—- to a rapist.

    Argument fail!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Benny Hill was Everyman.

    The whole point of Benny Hill was that he satirized the eternal futility of the male libido vis-à-vis the universal 'forbidden' temptation that surrounds him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. guest says:
    @SMK
    What do you mean by "pedophilia" -consensual sex between adults (those age 18 and older) and "children" (including biological men and women under age 18)? A pedophile is a man (including adolescent males under age 18 who are absurdly defined as "children") with a sexual fixation on and obsession with prepubescent children. The ultimate absurdity is demonizing women as "rapists" and "pedophiles" for allowing biological men under age 18 to penetrate them in factually consensual relationships -but only if they're 4-5 years older than their "victims" -the only crime in which the "victims" enjoy the actus reus (i.e. the ses) more than the women who "rape" and "molest" them and are often if not usually the aggressors and initiators of their phantasmal and theoretical "victimization." It's debatable if a women can even be a pedophile under the APA definition.

    “It’s debatable if a woman can even be a pedophile under the APA definition.”

    No, it’s not. Aside from the fact that many prepubescent males are physically capable of full intercourse, pedophilia includes fantasies as well as sexual acts involving children roughly 13 and under. I assure you, a majority of molestation cases are female on male, for the simple reason that women have far easier access to children. Unless I’m to believe they’re all messing with kids out of detached scientific interest, or some other nonsexual motivation, of course it’s possible for women to be pedophiles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dissident

    I assure you, a majority of molestation cases are female on male, for the simple reason that women have far easier access to children.
     
    But lower sex-drives than men and, by all indications that I am aware of, a lot less likely to be attracted to prepubescent children in the first place.

    Do you have any actual data you could cite to support your rather wild claim that "a majority of molestation cases are female on male"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Oaklanders says: • Website
    @whorefinder

    The plays of William Shakespeare were written by Edward DeVere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. (Look it up, kids.) Some people get very emotional about Edward DeVere/William Shakespeare.
     
    Shakespeare wrote the plays of Shakespeare. (Look it up, kid.)

    I do enjoy the Shakespeare-was-a-front-man wackos and their empty conspiracies; their ideas make the Oswald Deniers seem positively fact-based. The best part is many are of certain social groups that otherwise seem very intelligent so nobody calls them out on how idiotic they are.

    Tell me, is your conspiracy the one where DeVere committed incest with his own mother, who happened to be Queen Elizabeth, who then gave birth to thier inborn son, who happened to be Shakespeare himself ? I kid you guys not, that is actually a leading theory in the Shakespeare Conspiracy crowd.

    The convoluted nature of their factless conspiracies just proves how deep the rabbit hole goes!

    As I said, people get emotional. Whoever wrote the plays had an education greater than that of William Shakespeare. His funeral was unnoticed in London. His children did not act as if they had a famous father. Doubts about who really wrote the plays are nearly as old as the plays themselves. Two pro Edward DeVere books: Alias Shakespeare by Joseph Sobran and The Mysterious William Shakespeare by Charlton Ogburn

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder

    As I said, people get emotional.
     
    As you are, my little mentally deranged one.

    Whoever wrote the plays had an education greater than that of William Shakespeare
     
    .

    Nope. Everything in his plays---the Bible, the greek & latin playwrights and poets, the ancient myths, the history---were presented in the grammar school education he was taught in growing up. A nerdy boy would have known them, and used them later after he apprenticed in the theater and watched a other plays that incorporated them as well. As an apprentice playwright, do you really think he didn't notice the works in other plays of his time?

    Nice try with the lie, kiddo.

    His children did not act as if they had a famous father.
     

    Great argument! lol

    Doubts about who really wrote the plays are nearly as old as the plays themselves.
     
    lmao. No. Not even close. Shakespeare died in the 17th century. It was until the 19th century---200 years later--that you Shakespeare Deniers started spewing your lies.

    Honestly, this is all very reminiscent of the Oswald Deniers: deny obvious facts, exaggerate events, and the like. The only difference is the Shakespeare Deniers have proposed alternative theories, each of which make far less sense.

    Edward DeVere is not Shakespeare, son, no matter how much you wish it to be.

    , @Jack D
    A lot of this is just class snobbism, the same stuff that is going on right now in America. If Shakespeare was an unknown American today, people would claim that he must be someone who went to Harvard or Yale and if you proposed some guy with a high school education from a small town in Iowa as being the guy people would say that it's "impossible".

    The alternatives proposed for Shakespeare are always some hoighty toighty earl or duke or something, because no upper class Brit can conceive that the lower classes have any brains or talent. For the most part they don't but God likes to play little jokes on us and make the sons of Presidents idiots like Jeb and give talent out to the sons of Queens housebuilders and such.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. guest says:
    @SMK
    What do you mean by "pedophilia" -consensual sex between adults (those age 18 and older) and "children" (including biological men and women under age 18)? A pedophile is a man (including adolescent males under age 18 who are absurdly defined as "children") with a sexual fixation on and obsession with prepubescent children. The ultimate absurdity is demonizing women as "rapists" and "pedophiles" for allowing biological men under age 18 to penetrate them in factually consensual relationships -but only if they're 4-5 years older than their "victims" -the only crime in which the "victims" enjoy the actus reus (i.e. the ses) more than the women who "rape" and "molest" them and are often if not usually the aggressors and initiators of their phantasmal and theoretical "victimization." It's debatable if a women can even be a pedophile under the APA definition.

    I realize, of course, acting out sexually on children and being a pedophile aren’t the same thing. Some pedophiles never act, and some people who have sex with children aren’t pedophiles. But of all the women who molest, have intercourse with, or merely fantasize about children sexually, none of them are pedophiles? That’s a ridiculous notion.

    It would require feminist levels of chutzpah to lay the diagnosis at men’s feet alone. Like how some people think you can’t be a rapist if you don’t have a penis. In which case the DSM would be worthless propaganda. (If it isn’t anyway.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @SMK
    You're right in saying the "some pedophiles never act," possibly most I would add, and that "some people who have sex with children," prepubertal children I would add, "aren't pedophiles. Pedophilia defines sexual desire, not criminal behavior. How many women "molest, have intercourse with, or merely fantasize about children sexually"? Do you mean true children, prepubescent boys and girls, or also biological men and women under age 16 or even 18? How would you know that millions or tens of millions of women "fantasize about children sexually"? Are you omniscient? Can you read minds?

    I could go on and on on why few if any women are "pedophiles" under the APA definition, but I don't have the time and space. I suggest you visit my website, and search for and read the articles and blog-posts on this subject: women as "pedophiles," women as "rapists"?

    Because they don't have penises, women can't commit rape in the pure and literal sense of the word. Females can commit violent sexual assaults. But when they do so, it's usually with male accomplices. So it's reasonable to assume that women alone, acting without male accomplices, commit less than 1% of violent sexual assaults, well over 90% of which are rapes, which only males can commit in the pure and literal sense of the wood

    In all of history, recorded and prerecorded, has an "Asian" female ever used violence/force or threats of same -a knife or gun or her superior size and strength- to compel a black males to engage in sex-acts "against his will"?

    I'm a man and an anti-feminist and, paradoxically for you, that explains why I argue that women aren't "rapists" in the pure and literal sense and why few if any women are pedophiles as correctly defined and understood. The fundamental reason is that men have penises and women vaginas, and men, beginning at puberty, have dramatically higher levels of testosterone, and young men in their teens and 20's are volcanoes and hurricanes of testosterone. Read my blog-post "Transformed by testosterone: child to man."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. whorefinder says: • Website
    @anon
    Queen Elizabeth was born in 1533, Shakespeare in 1564.
    Are you sure you didn't just invent your story of Elizabeth having a child to her own son at the age of 31, then threw Oswald into the recipe?

    Queen Elizabeth was born in 1533, Shakespeare in 1564.
    Are you sure you didn’t just invent your story of Elizabeth having a child to her own son at the age of 31, then threw Oswald into the recipe?

    lol. Dude, that is literally the Oxfordian theory, one of the biggest among Shakespeare Denialists, and was dramatized in Roland Emmerich’s Hollywood movie Anonymous

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Anonymous_%28film%29

    You can try to weasel out of it, but the fact remains: the Shakespeare Denialists counter-hypotheses are so wacky, and are replete with such lies about Shakespeare, that you have to have a splinter in your mind to believe in them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @SMK
    What do you mean by "pedophilia" -consensual sex between adults (those age 18 and older) and "children" (including biological men and women under age 18)? A pedophile is a man (including adolescent males under age 18 who are absurdly defined as "children") with a sexual fixation on and obsession with prepubescent children. The ultimate absurdity is demonizing women as "rapists" and "pedophiles" for allowing biological men under age 18 to penetrate them in factually consensual relationships -but only if they're 4-5 years older than their "victims" -the only crime in which the "victims" enjoy the actus reus (i.e. the ses) more than the women who "rape" and "molest" them and are often if not usually the aggressors and initiators of their phantasmal and theoretical "victimization." It's debatable if a women can even be a pedophile under the APA definition.

    Sure there are grey areas as with everything. I’m not concerned about jail-bait. I’m concerned about elite pedophile rings trafficing in very small children as seen in e.g. the Marc Dutroux case I referenced above, the Jimmy Savile case, the Isle of Jersey, the Franklin Credit Union, Johnny Gosch etc etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Karl says:
    @Pericles
    Click through to get a better look at (((Scott Wiener))), California State Senator, and you will see he could easily become a satanic tranny himself. He's currently merely a homosexual Jew.

    Wiener is also behind the recent pro-HIV-spreading law of California and, prior to that, was publically taking Truvada, a compound to reduce the risk of getting HIV.

    Basically a crazy person who gets to lord it over Clown World. Please join his annual children's pumpkin carving contest.

    39 Pericles > (((Scott Wiener))), California State Senator

    I read about a certain famous alt-right blogger who could likely find a way to get the foxtrot out of California…. but doesn’t

    One is reminded of all those loud-mouthed zionists who continue to actually live in comfortable precincts of …. Brookline MA

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. whorefinder says: • Website
    @Oaklanders
    As I said, people get emotional. Whoever wrote the plays had an education greater than that of William Shakespeare. His funeral was unnoticed in London. His children did not act as if they had a famous father. Doubts about who really wrote the plays are nearly as old as the plays themselves. Two pro Edward DeVere books: Alias Shakespeare by Joseph Sobran and The Mysterious William Shakespeare by Charlton Ogburn

    As I said, people get emotional.

    As you are, my little mentally deranged one.

    Whoever wrote the plays had an education greater than that of William Shakespeare

    .

    Nope. Everything in his plays—the Bible, the greek & latin playwrights and poets, the ancient myths, the history—were presented in the grammar school education he was taught in growing up. A nerdy boy would have known them, and used them later after he apprenticed in the theater and watched a other plays that incorporated them as well. As an apprentice playwright, do you really think he didn’t notice the works in other plays of his time?

    Nice try with the lie, kiddo.

    His children did not act as if they had a famous father.

    Great argument! lol

    Doubts about who really wrote the plays are nearly as old as the plays themselves.

    lmao. No. Not even close. Shakespeare died in the 17th century. It was until the 19th century—200 years later–that you Shakespeare Deniers started spewing your lies.

    Honestly, this is all very reminiscent of the Oswald Deniers: deny obvious facts, exaggerate events, and the like. The only difference is the Shakespeare Deniers have proposed alternative theories, each of which make far less sense.

    Edward DeVere is not Shakespeare, son, no matter how much you wish it to be.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. guest says:

    “Hue funeral was unnoticed in London”

    Mozart was one of the most famous musicians in Europe, and he was buried in a common grave with either no mourners or a handful of people graveside. Beethoven, on the other hand, had 20,000 people in his funeral procession. You never know how these things will play out, and it’s not really dependent on fame.

    Besides, I thought the idea is that the man from Stratford was a frontman. In which case he would have been recognized as the author of the plays at the time of his death. Or did the con job only come about later?

    Is the idea that everyone in London knew DeVere was the Real Shakespeare at the time? Quite a conspiracy. Or did the plays hit the public from out of the blue, source unknown?

    “His children did not act as if they had a famous father”

    How do the children of famous playwrights from the 17th century act, exactly?

    Considering how little we know about Shake-spear’s life, how much do we know about how his children lived? And why should we know anything about them at all, of this Stratfordian was picked out of obscurity to be the frontman?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Mozart died during an epidemic, so large gatherings for funerals weren't being done. When Beethoven died, the Viennese had been hearing for over 25 years how they hadn't turned out for Mozart's funeral, so a huge crowd showed up for Beethoven's. But Beethoven was a bigger celebrity at the time of his death than Mozart, partly by living longer, but also because the Romantic Era culture of Beethoven was more attuned to the idea of celebrating artistic titans than the Enlightenment culture of Mozart, a change that Beethoven had contributed to.
    , @Steve Sailer
    Say in 75 years that our culture decides that the true masterpieces of the 20th Century were the scripts for the first decade of The Simpsons, but the writers were shamefully ignored, with only Conan O'Brien becoming as famous as they each deserved to be.

    But in our own time, most Simpsons' writers are quite pleased with the royalty checks they're still receiving 25 years later and enjoy talking to fans about their favorite episodes, which are still playing on TV. They don't expect to be studied in high school in future centuries.

    Or, substitute video games. Maybe the guy who designed the first really good first person shooter game will be esteemed as the one true genius of our age, but today only 100,000 game fanatics even know his name. But he's out on his sailboat right now thinking he got a very nice life out of his career.

    Or substitute Jack Kirby, a comic book artist. He suffered a lot of career frustrations and trickery and never quite got the money he deserved. But today his name is said with reverence, and a sizable number of people are familiar with his side of the story in various arcane disputes over IP rights that he most lost while he was alive.

    I suspect Shakespeare's attitude was that he had done much better for himself in the theater business than he or anyone else had reason to hope when he first got into it.

    , @James Kabala
    Of all the many problems with these theories, the worst is the inconsistency as to who knew about the ruse. Sometimes they talk as if it had been common knowledge (at least in the theatrical and political worlds), then other times they talk as if it had been a perfectly kept secret known to hardly anyone. Sometimes they claim Shakespeare of Stratford was a frontman, but other times they claim he was someone who just happened to have the same name and was not linked with the plays until after his death!
    , @Oaklanders
    Both books I mentioned, Alias Shakespeare by Joseph Sobran and The Mysterious William Shakespeare, list the other possible writers and conclude Edward DeVere was the writer. Neither book said anything about Queen Elezibeth having incest with her son. Whorefinder has a big imagination. In the 1500's and 1600's being involved in theater was considered below the dignity of the nobility.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Jack D says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    Actually,
    https://twitter.com/kurtisrai/status/739295719836782592

    I don’t know who that pickaninny in the picture is but it ain’t Bassano.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilia_Lanier

    She was of partial Sephardic Jewish descent and I guess in Shakespeare’s England would have been darker than most (not many Brits with wavy dark brown hair) but she was no sistah.

    Blacks (and gays – I swear that Gore Vidal thought everyone he met was secretly gay) seem to be willing to claim anyone from “Africa” or described as “dark” as being from their team (I guess because they have so few legitimately black heroes outside of sports). Historically (and Arab slavery muddled this a little) North Africans were a Mediterranean people similar to Greeks or Southern Italians and were a totally different thing than sub-Saharan Bantus who make up the American slave descendants.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @guest
    "Hue funeral was unnoticed in London"

    Mozart was one of the most famous musicians in Europe, and he was buried in a common grave with either no mourners or a handful of people graveside. Beethoven, on the other hand, had 20,000 people in his funeral procession. You never know how these things will play out, and it's not really dependent on fame.

    Besides, I thought the idea is that the man from Stratford was a frontman. In which case he would have been recognized as the author of the plays at the time of his death. Or did the con job only come about later?

    Is the idea that everyone in London knew DeVere was the Real Shakespeare at the time? Quite a conspiracy. Or did the plays hit the public from out of the blue, source unknown?

    "His children did not act as if they had a famous father"

    How do the children of famous playwrights from the 17th century act, exactly?

    Considering how little we know about Shake-spear's life, how much do we know about how his children lived? And why should we know anything about them at all, of this Stratfordian was picked out of obscurity to be the frontman?

    Mozart died during an epidemic, so large gatherings for funerals weren’t being done. When Beethoven died, the Viennese had been hearing for over 25 years how they hadn’t turned out for Mozart’s funeral, so a huge crowd showed up for Beethoven’s. But Beethoven was a bigger celebrity at the time of his death than Mozart, partly by living longer, but also because the Romantic Era culture of Beethoven was more attuned to the idea of celebrating artistic titans than the Enlightenment culture of Mozart, a change that Beethoven had contributed to.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Remember that classical music was just the contemporary music of the day. Mozart as a young man had been a rock star but by the time he died he was no longer getting any gigs - the public had moved on to whatever the latest thing was that week. Only later did his music come back into style.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Jack D says:
    @Oaklanders
    As I said, people get emotional. Whoever wrote the plays had an education greater than that of William Shakespeare. His funeral was unnoticed in London. His children did not act as if they had a famous father. Doubts about who really wrote the plays are nearly as old as the plays themselves. Two pro Edward DeVere books: Alias Shakespeare by Joseph Sobran and The Mysterious William Shakespeare by Charlton Ogburn

    A lot of this is just class snobbism, the same stuff that is going on right now in America. If Shakespeare was an unknown American today, people would claim that he must be someone who went to Harvard or Yale and if you proposed some guy with a high school education from a small town in Iowa as being the guy people would say that it’s “impossible”.

    The alternatives proposed for Shakespeare are always some hoighty toighty earl or duke or something, because no upper class Brit can conceive that the lower classes have any brains or talent. For the most part they don’t but God likes to play little jokes on us and make the sons of Presidents idiots like Jeb and give talent out to the sons of Queens housebuilders and such.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    You are absolutely right about the snobbery. The Shakespeares weren't exactly peons. His father was a successful business man, an alderman and active in the equivalent of the local chamber of commerce.

    Oxford and Cambridge were basically seminaries in those days. Most students planned to be clergy. It wasn't necessary to go to college to write a play.

    The historical plays were common knowledge about Kings and Roman emperors. Othello was based on a real admiral of the Venetian navy who killed his wife.

    A priest of Verona Italy wrote
    " The tragical history of Gullieta and her Romeo" 200 years before Shakespeare did. And Romeo and Juliet is a standard tale in every culture.

    King Lear was based on the betrayal of James 2 by his daughters Anne and Mary. Macbeth was supposedly based on a 900 AD Scots warlord. And Scotland in those days really was run by violent warlords. Many Scots kings were killed in rebellions.

    Taming of the Shrew wasn't much different from the story of Patient Griselda. The movie Overboard with Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell is a modern version of Taming of the Shrew. That's a common theme in all cultures.

    It took a genius to write the plays, but most of the characters and plots were common knowledge. The plots are written in today's screen plays.

    And who's to say Shakespeare never went to Italy??? Who's to say he never heard of Cleopatra, Julius Cesear,Marc Anthony Henry 5, Richard 3 and the rest???

    It's just snobbery. Issac Newton, Blaise Pascal, da Vinci and other geniuses came from middle class backgrounds.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. SMK says: • Website
    @guest
    I realize, of course, acting out sexually on children and being a pedophile aren't the same thing. Some pedophiles never act, and some people who have sex with children aren't pedophiles. But of all the women who molest, have intercourse with, or merely fantasize about children sexually, none of them are pedophiles? That's a ridiculous notion.

    It would require feminist levels of chutzpah to lay the diagnosis at men's feet alone. Like how some people think you can't be a rapist if you don't have a penis. In which case the DSM would be worthless propaganda. (If it isn't anyway.)

    You’re right in saying the “some pedophiles never act,” possibly most I would add, and that “some people who have sex with children,” prepubertal children I would add, “aren’t pedophiles. Pedophilia defines sexual desire, not criminal behavior. How many women “molest, have intercourse with, or merely fantasize about children sexually”? Do you mean true children, prepubescent boys and girls, or also biological men and women under age 16 or even 18? How would you know that millions or tens of millions of women “fantasize about children sexually”? Are you omniscient? Can you read minds?

    I could go on and on on why few if any women are “pedophiles” under the APA definition, but I don’t have the time and space. I suggest you visit my website, and search for and read the articles and blog-posts on this subject: women as “pedophiles,” women as “rapists”?

    Because they don’t have penises, women can’t commit rape in the pure and literal sense of the word. Females can commit violent sexual assaults. But when they do so, it’s usually with male accomplices. So it’s reasonable to assume that women alone, acting without male accomplices, commit less than 1% of violent sexual assaults, well over 90% of which are rapes, which only males can commit in the pure and literal sense of the wood

    In all of history, recorded and prerecorded, has an “Asian” female ever used violence/force or threats of same -a knife or gun or her superior size and strength- to compel a black males to engage in sex-acts “against his will”?

    I’m a man and an anti-feminist and, paradoxically for you, that explains why I argue that women aren’t “rapists” in the pure and literal sense and why few if any women are pedophiles as correctly defined and understood. The fundamental reason is that men have penises and women vaginas, and men, beginning at puberty, have dramatically higher levels of testosterone, and young men in their teens and 20′s are volcanoes and hurricanes of testosterone. Read my blog-post “Transformed by testosterone: child to man.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @guest
    "Hue funeral was unnoticed in London"

    Mozart was one of the most famous musicians in Europe, and he was buried in a common grave with either no mourners or a handful of people graveside. Beethoven, on the other hand, had 20,000 people in his funeral procession. You never know how these things will play out, and it's not really dependent on fame.

    Besides, I thought the idea is that the man from Stratford was a frontman. In which case he would have been recognized as the author of the plays at the time of his death. Or did the con job only come about later?

    Is the idea that everyone in London knew DeVere was the Real Shakespeare at the time? Quite a conspiracy. Or did the plays hit the public from out of the blue, source unknown?

    "His children did not act as if they had a famous father"

    How do the children of famous playwrights from the 17th century act, exactly?

    Considering how little we know about Shake-spear's life, how much do we know about how his children lived? And why should we know anything about them at all, of this Stratfordian was picked out of obscurity to be the frontman?

    Say in 75 years that our culture decides that the true masterpieces of the 20th Century were the scripts for the first decade of The Simpsons, but the writers were shamefully ignored, with only Conan O’Brien becoming as famous as they each deserved to be.

    But in our own time, most Simpsons’ writers are quite pleased with the royalty checks they’re still receiving 25 years later and enjoy talking to fans about their favorite episodes, which are still playing on TV. They don’t expect to be studied in high school in future centuries.

    Or, substitute video games. Maybe the guy who designed the first really good first person shooter game will be esteemed as the one true genius of our age, but today only 100,000 game fanatics even know his name. But he’s out on his sailboat right now thinking he got a very nice life out of his career.

    Or substitute Jack Kirby, a comic book artist. He suffered a lot of career frustrations and trickery and never quite got the money he deserved. But today his name is said with reverence, and a sizable number of people are familiar with his side of the story in various arcane disputes over IP rights that he most lost while he was alive.

    I suspect Shakespeare’s attitude was that he had done much better for himself in the theater business than he or anyone else had reason to hope when he first got into it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Maybe the guy who designed the first really good first person shooter game will be esteemed as the one true genius of our age... But he’s out on his sailboat right now thinking he got a very nice life out of his career...
     
    Or maybe his brain is being studied at Stanford:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/las-vegas-shooting-latest-stephen-paddock-autopsy-brain-study-stanford-university-a8000221.html
    , @Desiderius
    Of course the most likely candidate for wide appreciation in posterity is our host himself.
    , @guest
    Matt Groening got loads of press in the early days for being Mr. Simpsons. Aside from creating the original characters and premise, that was largely bogus. Because Groening was not a tv guy, and wouldn't have known know how to put a show together, let alone one of the biggest shows in tv history.

    I guess the MSM needed a human face to go along with Bart. Maybe it was Fox, maybe it was journalists themselves, I don't know. But imagine for a moment Groening actually was responsible for the Simpsons. He could've been the Shakespeare of tv comedy.

    In reality, credit for developing the show has to go to at least three people: Groening--for reasons already mentioned--Sam Simon--for establishing the writing staff and making it like a real show instead of a kiddie show or series of gags--and James L. Brooks--for being a Big Hollywood Producer and occasionally pitching in to give the writing heart. Of those three the one most responsible for the writing is Simon, of course. But he only stayed on through Season Four, which is the early part of the classical era of the Simpsons.

    Imagine if Simon had stayed on through whenever the show started to decline. I place that at Season 8, but there are a variety of opinions. In any case, he could very well have been the Simpson's Shakespeare. Or at least the guy with the lion's share of the credit. But that didn't happen.

    Moving down the list, credit spreads pretty thin. Many of them are famous in comedy writing circles, but they're not cut out to be public figures. George Meyer--whom I think is considered by the writing staff to be the funniest--and John Swartzwelder--who wrote the most episodes--aren't exactly Aaron Sorkin-types.

    It's the collective "writing room" that gets credit nowadays, which is like 10 people or so at a time and includes I don't know how many individuals over the course of the gold standard years. If it were possible to boil it down to one person, that person would be worshipped in our culture, I think. That person was Matt Groening during Bartmania.

    No one yells "Author! Author!" at the tv screen, like they do for plays. It's a "collaborative process," as they say. Increasingly, individuals are getting lion's shares of credit: David Chase (Sopranos), Matthew Weiner (Mad Men), Vince Gilligan (Breaking Bad), and there must be comedy guys, too, though I can't think of them off the top of my head. Back in 1989, there were well-known producers, like Brooks, Steven Bochco, Donald P.Bellisario, etc. They were known for writing, too, but they weren't Artististes like we treat them nowadays.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. This dialogue is often cut in productions of Hamlet to get the play over before midnight.

    I’ve seen five productions, but don’t remember this part.

    I’ve yet to attend several other of the Bard’s tragedies, because egotistical directors think it’s “cool” to restage them anachronistically, and straight productions are rare these days.

    Hamlet is luckier that way; perhaps Elsinore doesn’t transfer that to Berlin, Washington, or Mars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "Hamlet is luckier that way; perhaps Elsinore doesn't transfer that to Berlin, Washington, or Mars"

    Hamlet benefits from the fact that a "straight" production can be a gothic horror show set in a creepy, old castle, which remains a popular style. But fact is--aside from the Laurence Olivier movie version and the Maximilian Schell version I saw on Mystery Science Theater 3,000, which were suspiciously similar--I've seen as many different settings as I've seen productions of Hamlet. Here are a few:

    Kenneth Branagh's 1996 movie, filmed at Blenheim Palace in Victorian costume, but otherwise vaguely resembling Dr. Zhivago.

    The 2000 movie with Ethan Hawke set in then-contemporary New York.

    A Campbell Scott tv movie, set on a pre-war Southern plantation.

    A Guthrie theater version, set somewhere in WWII Europe. Polonius looked exactly like Freud and Fortinbras resembled General Montgomery.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Jack D says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Mozart died during an epidemic, so large gatherings for funerals weren't being done. When Beethoven died, the Viennese had been hearing for over 25 years how they hadn't turned out for Mozart's funeral, so a huge crowd showed up for Beethoven's. But Beethoven was a bigger celebrity at the time of his death than Mozart, partly by living longer, but also because the Romantic Era culture of Beethoven was more attuned to the idea of celebrating artistic titans than the Enlightenment culture of Mozart, a change that Beethoven had contributed to.

    Remember that classical music was just the contemporary music of the day. Mozart as a young man had been a rock star but by the time he died he was no longer getting any gigs – the public had moved on to whatever the latest thing was that week. Only later did his music come back into style.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Steve Sailer
    Say in 75 years that our culture decides that the true masterpieces of the 20th Century were the scripts for the first decade of The Simpsons, but the writers were shamefully ignored, with only Conan O'Brien becoming as famous as they each deserved to be.

    But in our own time, most Simpsons' writers are quite pleased with the royalty checks they're still receiving 25 years later and enjoy talking to fans about their favorite episodes, which are still playing on TV. They don't expect to be studied in high school in future centuries.

    Or, substitute video games. Maybe the guy who designed the first really good first person shooter game will be esteemed as the one true genius of our age, but today only 100,000 game fanatics even know his name. But he's out on his sailboat right now thinking he got a very nice life out of his career.

    Or substitute Jack Kirby, a comic book artist. He suffered a lot of career frustrations and trickery and never quite got the money he deserved. But today his name is said with reverence, and a sizable number of people are familiar with his side of the story in various arcane disputes over IP rights that he most lost while he was alive.

    I suspect Shakespeare's attitude was that he had done much better for himself in the theater business than he or anyone else had reason to hope when he first got into it.

    Maybe the guy who designed the first really good first person shooter game will be esteemed as the one true genius of our age… But he’s out on his sailboat right now thinking he got a very nice life out of his career…

    Or maybe his brain is being studied at Stanford:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/las-vegas-shooting-latest-stephen-paddock-autopsy-brain-study-stanford-university-a8000221.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    At the time of his death in 1791, Mozart was currently out of popularity in Vienna upper class circles due to his support for the French Revolution. He was still popular in Prague.

    But it's quite possible he would have returned to favor politically.

    If Mozart hadn't died in an epidemic he probably would have been invited to London, where his friend Haydn enjoyed such a huge triumph in the early to mid 1790s, composing his famous final 12 London symphonies for the bigger orchestras that were economically feasible in London due to the popularity of Viennese composers. Mozart had pushed the envelope of symphony writing in 1788 with his last 3 symphonies, 39 to 41. If he'd lived, he probably would have written some even better symphonies on a visit to London in an effort to top Haydn, who was evolving in response to Mozart's advances.

    There is a whole alternative history somebody wrote of the second half of Mozart's three score and ten. In the 1800s, Mozart ups his game in response to young local upstart Beethoven, the way Haydn had upped his game in response to Mozart. Highlights include Mozart teaming with Goethe as his librettist in 1806 to write history's most famous opera, Mozart's "Faust," and his re-uniting with his old librettist Da Ponte in New York City on Mozart's triumphant visit to the New World in the 1820s.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Alden
    That's one opinion. What do you think of the Roger Bacon theory? Or the ER 1 theory? Or the William
    Cecil theory? Or the Robert Spencer theory? Or the Duchess of Cambridge Katharine Middleton's ancestor theory? Or the feminazi theory that the plays were actually written by Shakespeare's wife, daughters or cleaning woman?
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Reg Cæsar

    Maybe the guy who designed the first really good first person shooter game will be esteemed as the one true genius of our age... But he’s out on his sailboat right now thinking he got a very nice life out of his career...
     
    Or maybe his brain is being studied at Stanford:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/las-vegas-shooting-latest-stephen-paddock-autopsy-brain-study-stanford-university-a8000221.html

    At the time of his death in 1791, Mozart was currently out of popularity in Vienna upper class circles due to his support for the French Revolution. He was still popular in Prague.

    But it’s quite possible he would have returned to favor politically.

    If Mozart hadn’t died in an epidemic he probably would have been invited to London, where his friend Haydn enjoyed such a huge triumph in the early to mid 1790s, composing his famous final 12 London symphonies for the bigger orchestras that were economically feasible in London due to the popularity of Viennese composers. Mozart had pushed the envelope of symphony writing in 1788 with his last 3 symphonies, 39 to 41. If he’d lived, he probably would have written some even better symphonies on a visit to London in an effort to top Haydn, who was evolving in response to Mozart’s advances.

    There is a whole alternative history somebody wrote of the second half of Mozart’s three score and ten. In the 1800s, Mozart ups his game in response to young local upstart Beethoven, the way Haydn had upped his game in response to Mozart. Highlights include Mozart teaming with Goethe as his librettist in 1806 to write history’s most famous opera, Mozart’s “Faust,” and his re-uniting with his old librettist Da Ponte in New York City on Mozart’s triumphant visit to the New World in the 1820s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Mozart had pushed the envelope of symphony writing in 1788 with his last 3 symphonies, 39 to 41. If he’d lived, he probably would have written some even better symphonies on a visit to London in an effort to top Haydn, who was evolving in response to Mozart’s advances.
     
    It'd be hard to top 39 and 40.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. vinteuil says:
    @guest
    "the Shakespeare-was-a-front-man wackos and their empty conspiracies; their ideas..."

    Besides Shakespeare lacking education, travel experience, and opportunity to mingle with the upper class,* the evidence I hear is usually that life of DeVere or whoever lines up with key events in the plays. As if the only way to write plays is as veiled autobiography. That's more a modern impulse, or at least a post-romantic one.

    "many are of certain social groups that otherwise seem very intelligent so nobody calls them out on how idiotic they are"

    One of my intellectual heroes, Joe Sobran, wrote a book called Alias Shakespeare. I haven't read it, but I know he's an "Oxfordian," i.e. believer in Shakespeare not being *the* Shakespeare. It can happen to anyone.

    *Thing about Shakespeare is that when doctors read his plays, they insist it must have been written by someone learned in medicine. When lawyers read him, they insist he must have known the law. When musicians read him, Shakespeare must have been a musician. And on and on.

    That's something only geniuses and con men can pull off: convincing everyone they know everything about everything.

    *Alias Shakespeare* is well worth a read. It won’t convince you, but you’ll learn a lot of crazy stuff that gets you more & more interested in the plays and, especially, the sonnets.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Steve Sailer
    Say in 75 years that our culture decides that the true masterpieces of the 20th Century were the scripts for the first decade of The Simpsons, but the writers were shamefully ignored, with only Conan O'Brien becoming as famous as they each deserved to be.

    But in our own time, most Simpsons' writers are quite pleased with the royalty checks they're still receiving 25 years later and enjoy talking to fans about their favorite episodes, which are still playing on TV. They don't expect to be studied in high school in future centuries.

    Or, substitute video games. Maybe the guy who designed the first really good first person shooter game will be esteemed as the one true genius of our age, but today only 100,000 game fanatics even know his name. But he's out on his sailboat right now thinking he got a very nice life out of his career.

    Or substitute Jack Kirby, a comic book artist. He suffered a lot of career frustrations and trickery and never quite got the money he deserved. But today his name is said with reverence, and a sizable number of people are familiar with his side of the story in various arcane disputes over IP rights that he most lost while he was alive.

    I suspect Shakespeare's attitude was that he had done much better for himself in the theater business than he or anyone else had reason to hope when he first got into it.

    Of course the most likely candidate for wide appreciation in posterity is our host himself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @guest
    "Hue funeral was unnoticed in London"

    Mozart was one of the most famous musicians in Europe, and he was buried in a common grave with either no mourners or a handful of people graveside. Beethoven, on the other hand, had 20,000 people in his funeral procession. You never know how these things will play out, and it's not really dependent on fame.

    Besides, I thought the idea is that the man from Stratford was a frontman. In which case he would have been recognized as the author of the plays at the time of his death. Or did the con job only come about later?

    Is the idea that everyone in London knew DeVere was the Real Shakespeare at the time? Quite a conspiracy. Or did the plays hit the public from out of the blue, source unknown?

    "His children did not act as if they had a famous father"

    How do the children of famous playwrights from the 17th century act, exactly?

    Considering how little we know about Shake-spear's life, how much do we know about how his children lived? And why should we know anything about them at all, of this Stratfordian was picked out of obscurity to be the frontman?

    Of all the many problems with these theories, the worst is the inconsistency as to who knew about the ruse. Sometimes they talk as if it had been common knowledge (at least in the theatrical and political worlds), then other times they talk as if it had been a perfectly kept secret known to hardly anyone. Sometimes they claim Shakespeare of Stratford was a frontman, but other times they claim he was someone who just happened to have the same name and was not linked with the plays until after his death!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. guest says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Say in 75 years that our culture decides that the true masterpieces of the 20th Century were the scripts for the first decade of The Simpsons, but the writers were shamefully ignored, with only Conan O'Brien becoming as famous as they each deserved to be.

    But in our own time, most Simpsons' writers are quite pleased with the royalty checks they're still receiving 25 years later and enjoy talking to fans about their favorite episodes, which are still playing on TV. They don't expect to be studied in high school in future centuries.

    Or, substitute video games. Maybe the guy who designed the first really good first person shooter game will be esteemed as the one true genius of our age, but today only 100,000 game fanatics even know his name. But he's out on his sailboat right now thinking he got a very nice life out of his career.

    Or substitute Jack Kirby, a comic book artist. He suffered a lot of career frustrations and trickery and never quite got the money he deserved. But today his name is said with reverence, and a sizable number of people are familiar with his side of the story in various arcane disputes over IP rights that he most lost while he was alive.

    I suspect Shakespeare's attitude was that he had done much better for himself in the theater business than he or anyone else had reason to hope when he first got into it.

    Matt Groening got loads of press in the early days for being Mr. Simpsons. Aside from creating the original characters and premise, that was largely bogus. Because Groening was not a tv guy, and wouldn’t have known know how to put a show together, let alone one of the biggest shows in tv history.

    I guess the MSM needed a human face to go along with Bart. Maybe it was Fox, maybe it was journalists themselves, I don’t know. But imagine for a moment Groening actually was responsible for the Simpsons. He could’ve been the Shakespeare of tv comedy.

    In reality, credit for developing the show has to go to at least three people: Groening–for reasons already mentioned–Sam Simon–for establishing the writing staff and making it like a real show instead of a kiddie show or series of gags–and James L. Brooks–for being a Big Hollywood Producer and occasionally pitching in to give the writing heart. Of those three the one most responsible for the writing is Simon, of course. But he only stayed on through Season Four, which is the early part of the classical era of the Simpsons.

    Imagine if Simon had stayed on through whenever the show started to decline. I place that at Season 8, but there are a variety of opinions. In any case, he could very well have been the Simpson’s Shakespeare. Or at least the guy with the lion’s share of the credit. But that didn’t happen.

    Moving down the list, credit spreads pretty thin. Many of them are famous in comedy writing circles, but they’re not cut out to be public figures. George Meyer–whom I think is considered by the writing staff to be the funniest–and John Swartzwelder–who wrote the most episodes–aren’t exactly Aaron Sorkin-types.

    It’s the collective “writing room” that gets credit nowadays, which is like 10 people or so at a time and includes I don’t know how many individuals over the course of the gold standard years. If it were possible to boil it down to one person, that person would be worshipped in our culture, I think. That person was Matt Groening during Bartmania.

    No one yells “Author! Author!” at the tv screen, like they do for plays. It’s a “collaborative process,” as they say. Increasingly, individuals are getting lion’s shares of credit: David Chase (Sopranos), Matthew Weiner (Mad Men), Vince Gilligan (Breaking Bad), and there must be comedy guys, too, though I can’t think of them off the top of my head. Back in 1989, there were well-known producers, like Brooks, Steven Bochco, Donald P.Bellisario, etc. They were known for writing, too, but they weren’t Artististes like we treat them nowadays.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Lisa Simpson is clearly a child version of Holly Hunter's newscast producer character in James L. Brooks' late 1980s movie "Broadcast News." So Brooks pretty much singlehandedly created one of the Simpsons.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Oaklanders says: • Website
    @guest
    "Hue funeral was unnoticed in London"

    Mozart was one of the most famous musicians in Europe, and he was buried in a common grave with either no mourners or a handful of people graveside. Beethoven, on the other hand, had 20,000 people in his funeral procession. You never know how these things will play out, and it's not really dependent on fame.

    Besides, I thought the idea is that the man from Stratford was a frontman. In which case he would have been recognized as the author of the plays at the time of his death. Or did the con job only come about later?

    Is the idea that everyone in London knew DeVere was the Real Shakespeare at the time? Quite a conspiracy. Or did the plays hit the public from out of the blue, source unknown?

    "His children did not act as if they had a famous father"

    How do the children of famous playwrights from the 17th century act, exactly?

    Considering how little we know about Shake-spear's life, how much do we know about how his children lived? And why should we know anything about them at all, of this Stratfordian was picked out of obscurity to be the frontman?

    Both books I mentioned, Alias Shakespeare by Joseph Sobran and The Mysterious William Shakespeare, list the other possible writers and conclude Edward DeVere was the writer. Neither book said anything about Queen Elezibeth having incest with her son. Whorefinder has a big imagination. In the 1500′s and 1600′s being involved in theater was considered below the dignity of the nobility.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Kabala
    This is not an idea embraced by those Oxfordians who remain relatively sane, but it can be found in the true fringes (and yet also in the would-be mainstream of a failed Hollywood movie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(film))
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Alden says:
    @Jack D
    A lot of this is just class snobbism, the same stuff that is going on right now in America. If Shakespeare was an unknown American today, people would claim that he must be someone who went to Harvard or Yale and if you proposed some guy with a high school education from a small town in Iowa as being the guy people would say that it's "impossible".

    The alternatives proposed for Shakespeare are always some hoighty toighty earl or duke or something, because no upper class Brit can conceive that the lower classes have any brains or talent. For the most part they don't but God likes to play little jokes on us and make the sons of Presidents idiots like Jeb and give talent out to the sons of Queens housebuilders and such.

    You are absolutely right about the snobbery. The Shakespeares weren’t exactly peons. His father was a successful business man, an alderman and active in the equivalent of the local chamber of commerce.

    Oxford and Cambridge were basically seminaries in those days. Most students planned to be clergy. It wasn’t necessary to go to college to write a play.

    The historical plays were common knowledge about Kings and Roman emperors. Othello was based on a real admiral of the Venetian navy who killed his wife.

    A priest of Verona Italy wrote
    ” The tragical history of Gullieta and her Romeo” 200 years before Shakespeare did. And Romeo and Juliet is a standard tale in every culture.

    King Lear was based on the betrayal of James 2 by his daughters Anne and Mary. Macbeth was supposedly based on a 900 AD Scots warlord. And Scotland in those days really was run by violent warlords. Many Scots kings were killed in rebellions.

    Taming of the Shrew wasn’t much different from the story of Patient Griselda. The movie Overboard with Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell is a modern version of Taming of the Shrew. That’s a common theme in all cultures.

    It took a genius to write the plays, but most of the characters and plots were common knowledge. The plots are written in today’s screen plays.

    And who’s to say Shakespeare never went to Italy??? Who’s to say he never heard of Cleopatra, Julius Cesear,Marc Anthony Henry 5, Richard 3 and the rest???

    It’s just snobbery. Issac Newton, Blaise Pascal, da Vinci and other geniuses came from middle class backgrounds.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl
    78 Alden > The plots are written in today’s screen plays


    if iSteve only ever had a nickel for each literary storyline since 1400 (Common Era) that hadn't already been hackneyed and repeated to death by Greek homo beatnik thespians before 200 (Before Common Era)..... he'd own a Platinum Achievement EBT Card Holder

    you figure that he HAS an EBT Card? I don't imagine that RonUnz pays very well..... how many other guys do you know who had to publicly schneur from strangers, to re-do their kitchen?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @guest
    Matt Groening got loads of press in the early days for being Mr. Simpsons. Aside from creating the original characters and premise, that was largely bogus. Because Groening was not a tv guy, and wouldn't have known know how to put a show together, let alone one of the biggest shows in tv history.

    I guess the MSM needed a human face to go along with Bart. Maybe it was Fox, maybe it was journalists themselves, I don't know. But imagine for a moment Groening actually was responsible for the Simpsons. He could've been the Shakespeare of tv comedy.

    In reality, credit for developing the show has to go to at least three people: Groening--for reasons already mentioned--Sam Simon--for establishing the writing staff and making it like a real show instead of a kiddie show or series of gags--and James L. Brooks--for being a Big Hollywood Producer and occasionally pitching in to give the writing heart. Of those three the one most responsible for the writing is Simon, of course. But he only stayed on through Season Four, which is the early part of the classical era of the Simpsons.

    Imagine if Simon had stayed on through whenever the show started to decline. I place that at Season 8, but there are a variety of opinions. In any case, he could very well have been the Simpson's Shakespeare. Or at least the guy with the lion's share of the credit. But that didn't happen.

    Moving down the list, credit spreads pretty thin. Many of them are famous in comedy writing circles, but they're not cut out to be public figures. George Meyer--whom I think is considered by the writing staff to be the funniest--and John Swartzwelder--who wrote the most episodes--aren't exactly Aaron Sorkin-types.

    It's the collective "writing room" that gets credit nowadays, which is like 10 people or so at a time and includes I don't know how many individuals over the course of the gold standard years. If it were possible to boil it down to one person, that person would be worshipped in our culture, I think. That person was Matt Groening during Bartmania.

    No one yells "Author! Author!" at the tv screen, like they do for plays. It's a "collaborative process," as they say. Increasingly, individuals are getting lion's shares of credit: David Chase (Sopranos), Matthew Weiner (Mad Men), Vince Gilligan (Breaking Bad), and there must be comedy guys, too, though I can't think of them off the top of my head. Back in 1989, there were well-known producers, like Brooks, Steven Bochco, Donald P.Bellisario, etc. They were known for writing, too, but they weren't Artististes like we treat them nowadays.

    Lisa Simpson is clearly a child version of Holly Hunter’s newscast producer character in James L. Brooks’ late 1980s movie “Broadcast News.” So Brooks pretty much singlehandedly created one of the Simpsons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Kabala
    Lisa is much less Type A. And generally more chipper - sometimes the plot requires her to be sad or melancholy, but she usually rebounds pretty quickly. I can't really picture Lisa having a regularly scheduled daily cry as Hunter does in the movie.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Dissident says:
    @Brabantian
    Was funny to click onto Steve's column, as I was just reading on another site how Hamlet's author William Shakespeare, is argued by some to have been a black person, hence his very original & social-critique perspectives
    https://bittergertrude.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/blak-shakespeare.jpg

    I was just reading on another site how Hamlet’s author William Shakespeare, is argued by some to have been a black person

    Did the author offer any suggestions on who some of Brother William‘s descendants might be? Perhaps this could even help to explain the uncanny genius of one T.N. Coates?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @whorefinder
    lmao. Comparing Benny Hill to Harvey Weinstein is literally comparing a man who likes to watch chicks run around in bikinis---i.e. 99% of all men---- to a rapist.

    Argument fail!

    Benny Hill was Everyman.

    The whole point of Benny Hill was that he satirized the eternal futility of the male libido vis-à-vis the universal ‘forbidden’ temptation that surrounds him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Dissident says:
    @Pericles
    Click through to get a better look at (((Scott Wiener))), California State Senator, and you will see he could easily become a satanic tranny himself. He's currently merely a homosexual Jew.

    Wiener is also behind the recent pro-HIV-spreading law of California and, prior to that, was publically taking Truvada, a compound to reduce the risk of getting HIV.

    Basically a crazy person who gets to lord it over Clown World. Please join his annual children's pumpkin carving contest.

    Just how, exactly, is the fact that Scott Wiener is a Jew relevant here?

    Are brazen, buggering, degenerate, Sodomite, Cultural Marxist termites okay (or at least less objectionable) as long as they are not Jewish?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. JimB says:

    Come to think of it, most TV shows I can think of would be improved by replacing the kids with talking chimps.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancelot_Link,_Secret_Chimp#Production

    Lancelot Link, Secret Chimp had a "seven-figure budget"[1] with location filming, props and costumes, and the laborious staging and training of the animals. The filmmakers made the most of the budget, staging multiple episodes with the same settings and wardrobe, occasionally reusing the more elaborate chase footage that sometimes included a Rolls Royce.[citation needed]

    Two of the three producers/creators were Stan Burns and Mike Marmer, former writers for Get Smart! Both resigned from their jobs as head writers on The Carol Burnett Show to work on Lancelot Link, Secret Chimp.[1]

    According to The Believer, "to make the dialogue fit the chimps’ lip action, Burns and Marmer went to ridiculous lengths. Voiceovers were ad-libbed on the set, giving birth to beautifully absurd moments of the chimps breaking into songs at the end of sentences or spontaneously reciting Mother Goose rhymes just so it would look right."[1]
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVbZId6BxWc

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snjtoKmAneE
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Karl says:
    @Alden
    You are absolutely right about the snobbery. The Shakespeares weren't exactly peons. His father was a successful business man, an alderman and active in the equivalent of the local chamber of commerce.

    Oxford and Cambridge were basically seminaries in those days. Most students planned to be clergy. It wasn't necessary to go to college to write a play.

    The historical plays were common knowledge about Kings and Roman emperors. Othello was based on a real admiral of the Venetian navy who killed his wife.

    A priest of Verona Italy wrote
    " The tragical history of Gullieta and her Romeo" 200 years before Shakespeare did. And Romeo and Juliet is a standard tale in every culture.

    King Lear was based on the betrayal of James 2 by his daughters Anne and Mary. Macbeth was supposedly based on a 900 AD Scots warlord. And Scotland in those days really was run by violent warlords. Many Scots kings were killed in rebellions.

    Taming of the Shrew wasn't much different from the story of Patient Griselda. The movie Overboard with Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell is a modern version of Taming of the Shrew. That's a common theme in all cultures.

    It took a genius to write the plays, but most of the characters and plots were common knowledge. The plots are written in today's screen plays.

    And who's to say Shakespeare never went to Italy??? Who's to say he never heard of Cleopatra, Julius Cesear,Marc Anthony Henry 5, Richard 3 and the rest???

    It's just snobbery. Issac Newton, Blaise Pascal, da Vinci and other geniuses came from middle class backgrounds.

    78 Alden > The plots are written in today’s screen plays

    if iSteve only ever had a nickel for each literary storyline since 1400 (Common Era) that hadn’t already been hackneyed and repeated to death by Greek homo beatnik thespians before 200 (Before Common Era)….. he’d own a Platinum Achievement EBT Card Holder

    you figure that he HAS an EBT Card? I don’t imagine that RonUnz pays very well….. how many other guys do you know who had to publicly schneur from strangers, to re-do their kitchen?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. MEH 0910 says:
    @JimB
    Come to think of it, most TV shows I can think of would be improved by replacing the kids with talking chimps.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancelot_Link,_Secret_Chimp#Production

    Lancelot Link, Secret Chimp had a “seven-figure budget”[1] with location filming, props and costumes, and the laborious staging and training of the animals. The filmmakers made the most of the budget, staging multiple episodes with the same settings and wardrobe, occasionally reusing the more elaborate chase footage that sometimes included a Rolls Royce.[citation needed]

    Two of the three producers/creators were Stan Burns and Mike Marmer, former writers for Get Smart! Both resigned from their jobs as head writers on The Carol Burnett Show to work on Lancelot Link, Secret Chimp.[1]

    According to The Believer, “to make the dialogue fit the chimps’ lip action, Burns and Marmer went to ridiculous lengths. Voiceovers were ad-libbed on the set, giving birth to beautifully absurd moments of the chimps breaking into songs at the end of sentences or spontaneously reciting Mother Goose rhymes just so it would look right.”[1]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Mr. Anon says:
    @Steve Sailer
    At the time of his death in 1791, Mozart was currently out of popularity in Vienna upper class circles due to his support for the French Revolution. He was still popular in Prague.

    But it's quite possible he would have returned to favor politically.

    If Mozart hadn't died in an epidemic he probably would have been invited to London, where his friend Haydn enjoyed such a huge triumph in the early to mid 1790s, composing his famous final 12 London symphonies for the bigger orchestras that were economically feasible in London due to the popularity of Viennese composers. Mozart had pushed the envelope of symphony writing in 1788 with his last 3 symphonies, 39 to 41. If he'd lived, he probably would have written some even better symphonies on a visit to London in an effort to top Haydn, who was evolving in response to Mozart's advances.

    There is a whole alternative history somebody wrote of the second half of Mozart's three score and ten. In the 1800s, Mozart ups his game in response to young local upstart Beethoven, the way Haydn had upped his game in response to Mozart. Highlights include Mozart teaming with Goethe as his librettist in 1806 to write history's most famous opera, Mozart's "Faust," and his re-uniting with his old librettist Da Ponte in New York City on Mozart's triumphant visit to the New World in the 1820s.

    Mozart had pushed the envelope of symphony writing in 1788 with his last 3 symphonies, 39 to 41. If he’d lived, he probably would have written some even better symphonies on a visit to London in an effort to top Haydn, who was evolving in response to Mozart’s advances.

    It’d be hard to top 39 and 40.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Dissident says:

    Interesting article and proposal. (And I appreciate you giving us the opportunity to comment on your Taki Mag articles here at Unz.)

    From the Taki article:

    Beyond the possibility of sexual abuse of minors, there’s the general question of whether being a child star is good for people in the long run.

    Yes, indeed. That is a question that has concerned me for some time and I, too, would like to see studies on it.

    Especially in cases where the child or adolescent star’s success and fame is based not so much, if at all, on any actual talent or abilities but on mere cuteness and looks. Or based on talent and ability that, specific and exclusive to the childhood or adolescent years, will have no market value into adulthood. In making a celebrity of a child based on said fleeting charms are we not setting him up for inevitable (and often severe) disillusionment?

    I fear that the example you cited of “stealing cute baby chimps from their mothers in the jungle just to have a short career in entertainment before they become ugly and uncontrollable at puberty” may be a lot more applicable here than we would like to think.

    Back in the days of old time radio, adults often played (voiced) the parts of children. Women played both girls as well as boys and I know of at least two men who had many roles as boys: Richard Beall and Walter Tetley. Having sadly never matured sexually*, both mens’ voices sounded uncannily like those of prepubescent boys. (*The official reason given was a rare medical condition. In the case of Tetley, at least, the biographies of him that I have read online state that there were rumors that his mother had him castrated as a child.)

    A different but related topic is that of imagery of minors that is sexually explicit yet entirely computer-generated or drawn and the legal and moral questions that such material raises. (To be clear, I am referring-to, depictions of fictional or at least plausibly fictional minors; not direct likenesses of actual, living minors.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    The official reason given was a rare medical condition. In the case of Tetley, at least, the biographies of him that I have read online state that there were rumors that his mother had him castrated as a child.
     
    Tetley (originally Tetzlaff) was the voice of Sherman. The one who started the rumors was none other than Mr Peabody himself, Bill Scott.

    I hate all of today's godawful CGI remakes of classic kids' fare, from Alvin and the Chipmunks to Thomas the Tank Engine and Fireman Sam. But in the case of Sherman and Peabody, it's almost a relief to hear the new voices, after hearing that horrific story-- which was probably just a bad joke.

    I mean, can a woman love money so much as to neuter her only child to keep it coming in? Or would it have been revenge on the boy's father?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Oaklanders
    Both books I mentioned, Alias Shakespeare by Joseph Sobran and The Mysterious William Shakespeare, list the other possible writers and conclude Edward DeVere was the writer. Neither book said anything about Queen Elezibeth having incest with her son. Whorefinder has a big imagination. In the 1500's and 1600's being involved in theater was considered below the dignity of the nobility.

    This is not an idea embraced by those Oxfordians who remain relatively sane, but it can be found in the true fringes (and yet also in the would-be mainstream of a failed Hollywood movie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(film))

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. TheOldOne says:

    Jack D:

    “Remember that classical music was just the contemporary music of the day.”

    Yep, if Mozart were around now, he’d be playing in a rock group.

    You’re just putting your ignorance on display.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  91. guest says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    This dialogue is often cut in productions of Hamlet to get the play over before midnight.
     
    I've seen five productions, but don't remember this part.

    I've yet to attend several other of the Bard's tragedies, because egotistical directors think it's "cool" to restage them anachronistically, and straight productions are rare these days.

    Hamlet is luckier that way; perhaps Elsinore doesn't transfer that to Berlin, Washington, or Mars.

    “Hamlet is luckier that way; perhaps Elsinore doesn’t transfer that to Berlin, Washington, or Mars”

    Hamlet benefits from the fact that a “straight” production can be a gothic horror show set in a creepy, old castle, which remains a popular style. But fact is–aside from the Laurence Olivier movie version and the Maximilian Schell version I saw on Mystery Science Theater 3,000, which were suspiciously similar–I’ve seen as many different settings as I’ve seen productions of Hamlet. Here are a few:

    Kenneth Branagh’s 1996 movie, filmed at Blenheim Palace in Victorian costume, but otherwise vaguely resembling Dr. Zhivago.

    The 2000 movie with Ethan Hawke set in then-contemporary New York.

    A Campbell Scott tv movie, set on a pre-war Southern plantation.

    A Guthrie theater version, set somewhere in WWII Europe. Polonius looked exactly like Freud and Fortinbras resembled General Montgomery.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Dissident says:
    @SMK
    What do you mean by "pedophilia" -consensual sex between adults (those age 18 and older) and "children" (including biological men and women under age 18)? A pedophile is a man (including adolescent males under age 18 who are absurdly defined as "children") with a sexual fixation on and obsession with prepubescent children. The ultimate absurdity is demonizing women as "rapists" and "pedophiles" for allowing biological men under age 18 to penetrate them in factually consensual relationships -but only if they're 4-5 years older than their "victims" -the only crime in which the "victims" enjoy the actus reus (i.e. the ses) more than the women who "rape" and "molest" them and are often if not usually the aggressors and initiators of their phantasmal and theoretical "victimization." It's debatable if a women can even be a pedophile under the APA definition.

    I agree that sexual intimacy between an adolescent male and an adult female is quite different than either (a) the converse (i.e., between an adolescent female and adult male) or (b) homosexual intimacy between an adolescent and an adult. And I do believe that in at least many cases, women who indulge in the forbidden delights of consensually cavorting with a freshly virile and still tender adolescent male are punished to a degree that far exceeds any justice or sense.

    That does not mean, however, that such intimacy and such unions and relationships (i.e., between an adult female and an adolescent male) are entirely without any concerns or potentially serious problems. (Some of these are mentioned in a podcast on this very topic that I came across and listened to a while back: Weimerica Weekly – Episode 28 – Horny Teachers)

    Commenter SMK appears to make no distinction between adolescents and adults, as evidenced in his pointed, repeated use of the term “biological adults”. Yes, physiologically/reproductively, a post-pubescent adolescent may be fully sexually mature. But mentally and emotionally, an adolescent, by definition, does not possess the maturity of an adult. Such factors, along with any number of other variables, can vary greatly between cases. We must examine and consider each case on an individual basis.

    Might there even be some cases in which an argument could be made for expressly encouraging sexual intimacy between an adult female and an adolescent male? I can imagine at least one such possible case: That where the was less-than-certain or confident about his sexual orientation and the goal of the intimacy with the woman would be to steer the boy toward healthful, normative heterosexuality. This is an idea that I think should be considered and studied.

    Between the hysteria, preening and moral panic that SMK decries, at one extreme, and his excessive reaction, at the other, there would appear to lie much ground.

    SMK wrote:

    It’s debatable if a women can even be a pedophile under the APA definition.

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pedophilia

    pedophilia

    [ped-uh-fil-ee-uh or, esp. British, pee-duh-]

    noun, Psychiatry.
    1.
    sexual desire in an adult for a child.

    While I’m sure that the APA definition is more detailed and complex, I find it difficult to imagine that it would preclude the basic dictionary definition that I quoted above.

    Surely, you would not deny that there are women (however few in numbers they may be) who have a persistent sexual desire for prepubertal children? How could such women, regardless of whatever else one may think of them, not be considered pedophiles?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Dissident says:
    @guest
    "It's debatable if a woman can even be a pedophile under the APA definition."

    No, it's not. Aside from the fact that many prepubescent males are physically capable of full intercourse, pedophilia includes fantasies as well as sexual acts involving children roughly 13 and under. I assure you, a majority of molestation cases are female on male, for the simple reason that women have far easier access to children. Unless I'm to believe they're all messing with kids out of detached scientific interest, or some other nonsexual motivation, of course it's possible for women to be pedophiles.

    I assure you, a majority of molestation cases are female on male, for the simple reason that women have far easier access to children.

    But lower sex-drives than men and, by all indications that I am aware of, a lot less likely to be attracted to prepubescent children in the first place.

    Do you have any actual data you could cite to support your rather wild claim that “a majority of molestation cases are female on male”?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Tim Howells
    I would love to believe that elite pedophilia is the next shoe to drop, but I'm not holding my breath.

    I fear elite pedophilia WAS the shoe meant to drop but a deal was made to expose Harvey instead. It’s absurd that we’re expected to anguish over a bunch of grown-ass attention whores (aka hollywood actresses) while we pretend that hollywood pedophilia is not happening.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Steve Sailer
    Lisa Simpson is clearly a child version of Holly Hunter's newscast producer character in James L. Brooks' late 1980s movie "Broadcast News." So Brooks pretty much singlehandedly created one of the Simpsons.

    Lisa is much less Type A. And generally more chipper – sometimes the plot requires her to be sad or melancholy, but she usually rebounds pretty quickly. I can’t really picture Lisa having a regularly scheduled daily cry as Hunter does in the movie.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @Alden
    I tried to find the name of this book I read but failed. A man last name Beauchamp who is a descendant of the Earls of Oxford wrote a book claiming ER1 had three sons, one at the age of 45.

    First son Thomas Seymour was the father. She was about 14. Baby boy smuggled away and adopted as oldest son and heir by the young Earl and Countess of Oxford who had not yet had children.

    Baby boy comes to court when he is 15 and ER1 is about 30. They have sex and she again has a boy. Her son quickly marries and he and wife adopt the boy .

    Baby boy grows up goes to court at 15 and has sex with 45 year old ER1 who has a baby boy. This baby boy is ER 1's grandson and heir to the earldom of Oxford.

    The author also brings up the theory than Anne Boleyn was actually Henry 8's daughter.

    Perhaps we should change the name of our oldest settlement from Virginia to a more appropriate lady’s name, one that was popular with the Puritans: the Commonwealth of Experience.

    https://www.behindthename.com/submit/names/usage/puritan

    https://www.behindthename.com/name/experience/submitted

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Dissident
    Interesting article and proposal. (And I appreciate you giving us the opportunity to comment on your Taki Mag articles here at Unz.)

    From the Taki article:


    Beyond the possibility of sexual abuse of minors, there’s the general question of whether being a child star is good for people in the long run.
     
    Yes, indeed. That is a question that has concerned me for some time and I, too, would like to see studies on it.

    Especially in cases where the child or adolescent star's success and fame is based not so much, if at all, on any actual talent or abilities but on mere cuteness and looks. Or based on talent and ability that, specific and exclusive to the childhood or adolescent years, will have no market value into adulthood. In making a celebrity of a child based on said fleeting charms are we not setting him up for inevitable (and often severe) disillusionment?

    I fear that the example you cited of "stealing cute baby chimps from their mothers in the jungle just to have a short career in entertainment before they become ugly and uncontrollable at puberty" may be a lot more applicable here than we would like to think.

    Back in the days of old time radio, adults often played (voiced) the parts of children. Women played both girls as well as boys and I know of at least two men who had many roles as boys: Richard Beall and Walter Tetley. Having sadly never matured sexually*, both mens' voices sounded uncannily like those of prepubescent boys. (*The official reason given was a rare medical condition. In the case of Tetley, at least, the biographies of him that I have read online state that there were rumors that his mother had him castrated as a child.)

    A different but related topic is that of imagery of minors that is sexually explicit yet entirely computer-generated or drawn and the legal and moral questions that such material raises. (To be clear, I am referring-to, depictions of fictional or at least plausibly fictional minors; not direct likenesses of actual, living minors.)

    The official reason given was a rare medical condition. In the case of Tetley, at least, the biographies of him that I have read online state that there were rumors that his mother had him castrated as a child.

    Tetley (originally Tetzlaff) was the voice of Sherman. The one who started the rumors was none other than Mr Peabody himself, Bill Scott.

    I hate all of today’s godawful CGI remakes of classic kids’ fare, from Alvin and the Chipmunks to Thomas the Tank Engine and Fireman Sam. But in the case of Sherman and Peabody, it’s almost a relief to hear the new voices, after hearing that horrific story– which was probably just a bad joke.

    I mean, can a woman love money so much as to neuter her only child to keep it coming in? Or would it have been revenge on the boy’s father?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dissident

    I hate all of today’s godawful CGI remakes of classic kids’ fare,
     
    What about the 2009 film adaptation of Maurice Sendak's classic children's book Where The Wild Things Are? I did not see it but I know that in addition to employing special effects, it starred a real boy: Max Records (who looked positively adorable in that wolf suit). (In suspecting "Max Records" was a stage name and wondering whether it was mere coincidence that 'Max' is also the name of the main character in the story, I am sure I am not alone.)

    Sendak's richly illustrated work of fantasy, however, would seem well-suited for a CGI or even classic animated production. Will we one day see one?

    But in the case of Sherman and Peabody, it’s almost a relief to hear the new voices, after hearing that horrific story– which was probably just a bad joke.
     
    In the Wikipedia entry on the phenomenon of castrato, I read,

    Voice actor Walter Tetley may or may not have been a castrato; Bill Scott, a co-worker of Tetley's during their later work in television, once half-jokingly quipped that Tetley's mother "had him fixed" to protect the child star's voice-acting career. Tetley never personally divulged the exact reason for his condition, which left him with the voice of a preteen boy for his entire adult life.[33]
     
    (emphasis mine- Dissident)

    Citation #33:

    Keith Scott (2000). The Moose That Roared – The story of Jay Ward, Bill Scott, a flying squirrel and a talking moose. St. Martins Press. ISBN 0-312-19922-8.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Steve Sailer
    In "Hamlet," the main character appears to be either 16 or 30. A plausible theory is that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet to be 16 (which meant that his mother could be in her early 30s and likely to bear a rival heir to Hamlet to her new husband), but that his lead actor Richard Burbage, who was probably in his early 30s, objected, so Shakespeare added a line making his age 30.

    But that makes his mother too old to have a child by her new husband, so Hamlet would appear to be in line to inherit the throne when his uncle dies, so what's his problem? But then how did a 30 year old crown prince get squeezed out of the succession, since 30 would be about the ideal age for a new king?

    I've never heard of a 16 year old actor playing Hamlet, though. The internet says the youngest Hamlet at Stratford was 24 year old David Warner.

    In “Hamlet,” the main character appears to be either 16 or 30.

    It doesn’t have to be either/or. Another possibility is that he is initially presented as being in his teens but then the playwright “ages” (matures) him during the play, specifying his precise age only when he returns from England in Act V.

    A plausible theory is that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet to be 16 … but that his lead actor Richard Burbage, who was probably in his early 30s, objected, so Shakespeare added a line making his age 30.

    Yes, plausible. But would Shakespeare want to abandon his obvious intention to present him as “young Hamlet”? A.C.Bradley wondered whether that phrase was merely intended to distinguish him from his late father, “Old Hamlet”. I’m not convinced. Besides, age thirty at the time would have been virtually “middle aged”. Would Hamlet still have been at university at age 30?

    …so Hamlet would appear to be in line to inherit the throne when his uncle dies, so what’s his problem?

    Hamlet: Aye, but “While the grass grows…” The proverb is something musty.

    He seems to be frustrated at the prospect of hanging around Elsinore for years waiting for Claudius to shuffle off this mortal coil. Of course, that’s only one of his problems.

    But then how did a 30 year old crown prince get squeezed out of the succession, since 30 would be about the ideal age for a new king?

    Claudius “popped in between the election and my hopes”. This suggests that:
    1. Hamlet had hoped to be King;
    2. he felt cheated out of the throne by Claudius;
    3. in Elsinore the succession from father to son was apparently not a foregone conclusion: there had to be an election, presumably by the nobility;
    4. these electors were probably “persuaded” to elect Claudius. He admits in soliloquy that the “effects for which I did the murder” were “my crown, mine own ambition and my Queen”. I would suspect a lot of scheming, bribery and arm-twisting in order to win the election. Polonius would have been a crucial ally at that stage.

    So my hypothesis – which I cannot prove – is that Shakespeare wanted to present Hamlet at the start of the play as an emotionally vulnerable young man of university-student age who, through this unusually lengthy and eventful play, develops into a more mature, reflective character who becomes, in the final act, world-weary and resigned to whatever fate has in store for him. The years between his age in Act 1 and his age 30 in Act V, along with what the dialogue shows us, are enough to convey this character development.

    I think it’s unnecessary to suppose, as Bradley and some others do, that Hamlet begins the play as a 30-year-old. The fact that Burbage was a bit mature to play a young student was less important in a theatre where the audience were used to gaining their information about the characters mainly from the dialogue* (They were also used to accepting males playing females, even in love scenes, and night-time scenes being played in daylight).

    *During a visit to New York I saw Puccini’s La Boheme at the Met, at which the audience (as they have to) accepted the convention that a group of students were played and sung by beefy middle aged opera stars.
    And look at the schoolkids in Grease…!
    In fact (to return more closely to your original topic for this thread), isn’t there something of a tradition in the movies for having students played by inappropriately-aged actors?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dissident
    Fascinating discussion on Hamlet's age.

    One that would have surely been appreciated by my late father. If only I could share it with him.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Dissident says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    The official reason given was a rare medical condition. In the case of Tetley, at least, the biographies of him that I have read online state that there were rumors that his mother had him castrated as a child.
     
    Tetley (originally Tetzlaff) was the voice of Sherman. The one who started the rumors was none other than Mr Peabody himself, Bill Scott.

    I hate all of today's godawful CGI remakes of classic kids' fare, from Alvin and the Chipmunks to Thomas the Tank Engine and Fireman Sam. But in the case of Sherman and Peabody, it's almost a relief to hear the new voices, after hearing that horrific story-- which was probably just a bad joke.

    I mean, can a woman love money so much as to neuter her only child to keep it coming in? Or would it have been revenge on the boy's father?

    I hate all of today’s godawful CGI remakes of classic kids’ fare,

    What about the 2009 film adaptation of Maurice Sendak’s classic children’s book Where The Wild Things Are? I did not see it but I know that in addition to employing special effects, it starred a real boy: Max Records (who looked positively adorable in that wolf suit). (In suspecting “Max Records” was a stage name and wondering whether it was mere coincidence that ‘Max’ is also the name of the main character in the story, I am sure I am not alone.)

    Sendak’s richly illustrated work of fantasy, however, would seem well-suited for a CGI or even classic animated production. Will we one day see one?

    But in the case of Sherman and Peabody, it’s almost a relief to hear the new voices, after hearing that horrific story– which was probably just a bad joke.

    In the Wikipedia entry on the phenomenon of castrato, I read,

    Voice actor Walter Tetley may or may not have been a castrato; Bill Scott, a co-worker of Tetley’s during their later work in television, once half-jokingly quipped that Tetley’s mother “had him fixed” to protect the child star’s voice-acting career. Tetley never personally divulged the exact reason for his condition, which left him with the voice of a preteen boy for his entire adult life.[33]

    (emphasis mine- Dissident)

    Citation #33:

    Keith Scott (2000). The Moose That Roared – The story of Jay Ward, Bill Scott, a flying squirrel and a talking moose. St. Martins Press. ISBN 0-312-19922-8.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Dissident says:
    @englishmike

    In “Hamlet,” the main character appears to be either 16 or 30.
     
    It doesn't have to be either/or. Another possibility is that he is initially presented as being in his teens but then the playwright "ages" (matures) him during the play, specifying his precise age only when he returns from England in Act V.

    A plausible theory is that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet to be 16 ... but that his lead actor Richard Burbage, who was probably in his early 30s, objected, so Shakespeare added a line making his age 30.
     
    Yes, plausible. But would Shakespeare want to abandon his obvious intention to present him as "young Hamlet"? A.C.Bradley wondered whether that phrase was merely intended to distinguish him from his late father, "Old Hamlet". I'm not convinced. Besides, age thirty at the time would have been virtually "middle aged". Would Hamlet still have been at university at age 30?

    ...so Hamlet would appear to be in line to inherit the throne when his uncle dies, so what’s his problem?
     
    Hamlet: Aye, but "While the grass grows..." The proverb is something musty.

    He seems to be frustrated at the prospect of hanging around Elsinore for years waiting for Claudius to shuffle off this mortal coil. Of course, that's only one of his problems.

    But then how did a 30 year old crown prince get squeezed out of the succession, since 30 would be about the ideal age for a new king?
     
    Claudius "popped in between the election and my hopes". This suggests that:
    1. Hamlet had hoped to be King;
    2. he felt cheated out of the throne by Claudius;
    3. in Elsinore the succession from father to son was apparently not a foregone conclusion: there had to be an election, presumably by the nobility;
    4. these electors were probably "persuaded" to elect Claudius. He admits in soliloquy that the "effects for which I did the murder" were "my crown, mine own ambition and my Queen". I would suspect a lot of scheming, bribery and arm-twisting in order to win the election. Polonius would have been a crucial ally at that stage.

    So my hypothesis – which I cannot prove – is that Shakespeare wanted to present Hamlet at the start of the play as an emotionally vulnerable young man of university-student age who, through this unusually lengthy and eventful play, develops into a more mature, reflective character who becomes, in the final act, world-weary and resigned to whatever fate has in store for him. The years between his age in Act 1 and his age 30 in Act V, along with what the dialogue shows us, are enough to convey this character development.

    I think it's unnecessary to suppose, as Bradley and some others do, that Hamlet begins the play as a 30-year-old. The fact that Burbage was a bit mature to play a young student was less important in a theatre where the audience were used to gaining their information about the characters mainly from the dialogue* (They were also used to accepting males playing females, even in love scenes, and night-time scenes being played in daylight).

    *During a visit to New York I saw Puccini's La Boheme at the Met, at which the audience (as they have to) accepted the convention that a group of students were played and sung by beefy middle aged opera stars.
    And look at the schoolkids in Grease...!
    In fact (to return more closely to your original topic for this thread), isn't there something of a tradition in the movies for having students played by inappropriately-aged actors?

    Fascinating discussion on Hamlet’s age.

    One that would have surely been appreciated by my late father. If only I could share it with him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @englishmike
    Thank you, Dissident. I appreciate every word of that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @Dissident
    Fascinating discussion on Hamlet's age.

    One that would have surely been appreciated by my late father. If only I could share it with him.

    Thank you, Dissident. I appreciate every word of that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation