On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> So the Shakespeare's fame came mainly from the fact that he was a producer
> of a collectively put together show rather than an author of the text.
> Today we are simply projecting our own ideologically motivated notion of
> intellectual property rights and are amazed to discover that Mr. S was not
> the sole author.
The only problem with this theory is that the Baconian heresy started, and was most vigorous, in the 1850s and 60s, when the notion of copyright was still spectacularly weak. (People still felt completely free during that period to rewrite, change, add to and improvise on plays, including most certainly Shakespeare's. And you should see what they did to Harriet Beecher Stowe!)
Whereas now, when the notion of intellectual property rights has reached its apogee, the idea that Shakespeare didn't write the plays is essentially dead in legitimating milieux.
Which would seem to be the opposite of what your theory would predict.
But you're getting into the spirit! :o) The real point of the game is to come up with unconventional conclusions that seem to turn everything its head and show our side is right:
> But this is more of function of that old ideologically motivated ruse that
> intellectual property rights is a necessary condition of creativity. It
> ain't - neo-liberal hogwash notwithstanding.
while making it look like this vertiginous brilliance just grows naturally out of thinking about the Shakespeare authorship debate. Well done!
Michael