The Campaign to Prove Shakespeare Didn't Exist

The greatest ongoing investigation in literary history has been caused entirely by William Shakespeare’s thoughtlessness. He left no paper trail. Not a single poem or letter or play has ever been found in his own hand. We have just six shaky signatures. His will mentions no books, plays or anything else to suggest the balding Stratford businessman was also a writer.
His personality, love interests, movements are all a total mysery. The documents relating to his life are all of a legal nature. Nobody ever recognised Shakespeare as a writer during his lifetime and when he died, in 1616, no one seemed to notice. Not a single letter refers to the great author’s passing at the time.
Now, a new book has fanned the flames of treason by saying that Shakespeare of Stratford, far from being the most colossal literary genius of all time, was a provincial Midlands nobody who could barely write his name. Shakespeare in Court by Alexander Waugh is written in a mock trial format. It sifts the evidence and, without putting forward any other candidate, asserts that there are plenty of reasons to think Shakespeare was a front man or pseudonym for some highly educated, well-travelled courtier, who preferred to keep his identity secret in an age when pen-names were common.


http://www.newsweek.com/2014/12/26/campaign-prove-shakespeare-didnt-exist-293243.html

if it is true the courtier would be spewing now

But possible
interesting that there is so little from him personally I always thought it was quite well documented from they way it is taught in schools

I think Shakespeare's works are overemphasized in public-school curricula; particularly in multicultural societies, there should be more room given to other works and writers. There's no reason for kids coming out of schools that are predominantly black or Hispanic to have never heard of Langston Hughes, Toni Morrison, Sandra Cisneros or Tomas Rivera.

I don't think they are over emphasized at all Ben. Fact is many of Shakespeare's stories are reimagined in many films, TV shows etc of the modern age. A heck of a lot of the terms we use we find first reference of in Shakespeare. There is plenty of reason for black or Hispanic people or oriental or Arabic people to learn Shakespeare IF they are living in English speaking countries. They are incredibly relevant in terms of both the language used and historical cultural significance.

Seriously, what other writer can honestly be claimed to have impacted English speaking societies in a greater way than Will?

As to the notion he never existed- it's rubbish. He was acknowledged then at the very least in as much as it was never claimed otherwise. No serious alternative has ever been suggested and no one else ever claimed authorship (it was done on other's behalf). If someone else had written a few plays credited to Will it is unthinkable they would not tell anyone or leave a message saying as much posthumously.

Will wrote them, and they are of greater significance in English speaking countries than any other writer, even for other ethnic groups if they choose to live here. Include other writers from different cultures sure, but be realistic in acknowledging their limited impact compared to WS.

I agree with Ben

he shows a phase in the evolution of the English language but his works aren't really great moral tales or historically accurate works. We don't talk like that anymore and we don't share his world views or morality anymore. I enjoy his works but I am struggling to think or a relevant moral for today from them.

I think Aesop has had a greater impact on western morality.
Voltaire had a greater impact on our political morality/ideals.
Tolkien has had a greater impact on Fantasy literature, film and games.

Really there are so many Authors that have as much value as Shakespeare, it is not that it shouldn't be taught but maybe less off it to make room for some of the other that currently get ignored while you do Shakespeare for the 5th times.

No one says WS is historically accurate; I said cultural history.

There is a strong argument for The Bible being more important regarding our morality (for better or for worse).

Tolkien is great but very niche lets be honest.

I don't know the situation in the US and Aus but in the UK you can expect to touch WS twice at most in Secondary School. Is it possible in your relatively newer nations that WS is covered more extensively to enforce predominantly Anglo-Saxon heritage?

Every year at high school as part of the mandatory 'English' subject.

Tolkien is niche until you consider World of warcraft, dungeons and dragons and countless franchises that make up a large section of the game market and the game market is bigger than film, books and music combined
let alone how heavily engrained in pop culture his descriptions of Elves, Orcs and Dwarves. lets face it only Zombies, Werewolves and Vampires are more universal.

and the Bible Doesn't teach any moral not already taught by Aesop 600 years earlier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesop

But the Bible was certainly the go to book for moral guidance for over 1000 years of English history, and like WS, the King James Bible also enshires numerous English language features still in use today.

And agreed then the US and Aus overkill where Shakespeare is concerned, the UK has a good balance.

And Aesop formed the moral guidelines of the Romans that Compiled the bible they were using being kids tales makes then unoffensive enough to be spared destruction and still used today. who doesn't know the Tortoise and the Hare, the Ant and the Grasshopper, Goose with the Golden Eggs. You see We actually learn a lot of these stories before we learn the bible stories, specifically because they are written for young kids. Aesop is way ahead of his time (like Millennia ahead) in the art of early childhood education

http://www.taleswithmorals.com/

language keeps evolving some came from before them and some came from after.

I appreciate the lack of originality in the Bible; but talking from a purely English language based perspective, for obvious reasons the KJ Bible and WS have more relevance in English societies.

I think the Bible was good for distilling and condensing a lot of mainstream Western morality, even if it's looking a bit threadbare now; you even see mainstream Christians disavowing the Old Testament all the time -- even though the leaders of their church obviously wanted it included in Christian religious teachings.

I would never argue against teaching Shakespeare altogether, as the works still loom so large in our culture and do hold up on their own. I just wish they weren't taught so much that they push out other great works, and not just for cultural (or multicultural) reasons -- for example, if I was king I'd have kids spend at least a month or two studying '1984' in this day and age, something that is a bit more relevant to the major issues of our times. Orwell's works in general have a lot to say about the issues of today; I think high schoolers should not just be limited (as they tend to be in the U.S.) to 'Animal Farm,' which is not only a bit below the level they should be at in their teens, but also often taught here merely as an anti-Communist story rather than as an anti-authoritarian story.

Shakespeare was a spin doctor who told a story. I don't like him - heresy for a librarian I know but hes overrated......imo

Eilzel wrote:I appreciate the lack of originality in the Bible; but talking from a purely English language based perspective, for obvious reasons the KJ Bible and WS have more relevance in English societies.

LOL
Read Beowulf the First literary work in 'English' to see why what you just said is silly
why should it stop moving just because the empire did? The events of England have no more relevance than the events of ancient Rome on modern English (which is some) and as Ben has pointed out in another thread modern English is NOT from England.

Speaking one tongue is relatively new to the Britannic Isle.
The Children's tales where Already there before the King James Bible(1611) or Shakespeare (1564 - 1616)

The first printed version of Aesop's Fables in English was published on March 26, 1484, by William Caxton.

they were in Latin in England in the 10th century. in all probability both King James and Shakespeare heard Aesop's Fables as Children

They probably did; that doesn't really change the point (which you missed) that from a language perspective alone (not morals or anything else) WS and KJB collect many language elements in writings of immense importance- culturally and poltitically in the case of KJB and culturally and linguistically in the case of WS.

We never mentioned Beowulf, I would count that as another important work in English too- however, unlike WS, Beowulf is not as immediately recognizable as Shakespeare. Shakespeare tops Aesop (in England at least) simply for being authentically English in origin and being a checkpoint for much of the language we use today (phrases we still use can be found is his plays).

I never mention things stopping moving because of empire, that's your bias presumption coming into play I'm afraid. And though England was multilingual for a period, the English language has existed and evolved (as any language does) for over 1000 years.

Cass wrote:Shakespeare was a spin doctor who told a story. I don't like him - heresy for a librarian I know but hes overrated......imo

I applaud that.  As a Scot, I have always been a fan of Mary Stuart, even though I am an elder in the Presbyterian Church and Mary was on the Catholic side of things.  The English done a very high-level crime--regicide--in order to keep Elizabeth in office and Mary from her rightful place as Queen of England.  (And if you question that, why was Mary's son James instated upon Elizabeth's death?)  Elizabeth was a tramp!!  No one was more the liar than Shakespeare, the shill for the Tudors.  Shakespeare kissed Tudor ass...there's no other way to put it.

I believe god is punishing the English for the murder of Mary Stuart. That's why y'all are no longer great.  Shame...

I don't know about whether Shakespeare existed or not, I'm kinda with les on all of this, and agree on his take throughout the thread.
I don't tbink WS books are the only works worth studying either, but to day his books hold no story or morals is silly; they all have a moral and they all tell the standard story of love, with all it's many emotions and colours.

By the by, we studied the great To Kill a Mockingbird for our mock GCSEs.

eddie wrote:I don't know about whether Shakespeare existed or not, I'm kinda with les on all of this, and agree on his take throughout the thread.
I don't tbink WS books are the only works worth studying either, but to day his books hold no story or morals is silly; they all have a moral and they all tell the standard story of love, with all it's many emotions and colours.

By the by, we studied the great To Kill a Mockingbird for our mock GCSEs.

TKAM is another that needs to go Good golly gee, the books the teachers forced down our throats that were basically from a different time and in a different language ... Scarlet Letter was a big one (Hawthorne wrote some great short stories, though). Moby Dick, of course (why not Bartleby the Scrivener?). I had to wait until after public schooling to get to Huxley. Had to wait till university to read any Conrad or Dostoevsky, let alone the likes of Anne Tyler or Joyce Carol Oates. Had to discover Kurt Vonnegut Jr. on my own in high school, though I'm glad I did obviously

Eilzel wrote:They probably did; that doesn't really change the point (which you missed) that from a language perspective alone (not morals or anything else) WS and KJB collect many language elements in writings of immense importance- culturally and poltitically in the case of KJB and culturally and linguistically in the case of WS.

We never mentioned Beowulf, I would count that as another important work in English too- however, unlike WS, Beowulf is  not as immediately recognizable as Shakespeare. Shakespeare tops Aesop (in England at least) simply for being authentically English in origin and being a checkpoint for much of the language we use today (phrases we still use can be found is his plays).

I never mention things stopping moving because of empire, that's your bias presumption coming into play I'm afraid. And though England was multilingual for a period, the English language has existed and evolved (as any language does) for over 1000 years.

You take the literary works that defined that period and say they are the most important for 1000 years and ignore everything else. a couple of hundred years at best either work has in terms of language.
Even though the vast majority of work that Define Western Culture is NOT written in England and Never was. England has never been a nation of great authors and philosophers, it had always been imported until KJB and WS. Both of Which are openly Copies of others, KJB obviously
but even Shakespeare is quoted as saying that it is just his telling of timeless tales (and you will find the core to every Shakespeare work in Latin works many of which come from even older Greek works) Shakespeare even calls himself a Bard and Bards retell stories.


for every phrase we use from WS there are 3 we don't. WS relevance on Modern English is less than Dr Dre.

Beowulf is not as immediately recognizable because it is older it shows you what a few hundred years does it is to Shakespeare what Shakespeare is to the late 1900's.

And being from England only matters to Archaic English not Modern English, Which is largely from America and Far superior for its ability to be multicultural.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:I don't know about whether Shakespeare existed or not, I'm kinda with les on all of this, and agree on his take throughout the thread.
I don't tbink WS books are the only works worth studying either, but to day his books hold no story or morals is silly; they all have a moral and they all tell the standard story of love, with all it's many emotions and colours.

By the by, we studied the great To Kill a Mockingbird for our mock GCSEs.

TKAM is another that needs to go Good golly gee, the books the teachers forced down our throats that were basically from a different time and in a different language ... Scarlet Letter was a big one (Hawthorne wrote some great short stories, though). Moby Dick, of course (why not Bartleby the Scrivener?). I had to wait until after public schooling to get to Huxley. Had to wait till university to read any Conrad or Dostoevsky, let alone the likes of Anne Tyler or Joyce Carol Oates. Had to discover Kurt Vonnegut Jr. on my own in high school, though I'm glad I did obviously

Agree most of this list are no longer modern works but often treated like them.
they should be culled down to the best and moved to classics.
Classics need to stop being 300 year old books from England and start including the 100 plus year old works from the rest of the English speaking world.

Since we study 'English' as a language we should focus less on novels and written works altogether as they are simple not very important to the modern tongue. Music, TV and Movies all have greater impact on the common vocabulary (interestingly no one would have read Shakespeare in the day they are plays thus the equivalent of Movies or TV)

and if we study 'literature' we should study it from all cultures and nations. It should not really matter what language it was originally written in.

Ok I'm not going to go into length due to one error you made concerning my argument and another hint of bias.

1. I never said we should ignore everything else, in fact I pointed out the British system, which looks at two plays at most, was the right balance. I understand people make daft presumptions a times but come off it veya I even said this earlier...

2. 'England was never a nation of great authors'... Get real lol

Eilzel wrote:Ok I'm not going to go into length due to one error you made concerning my argument and another hint of bias.

1. I never said we should ignore everything else, in fact I pointed out the British system, which looks at two plays at most, was the right balance. I understand people make daft presumptions a times but come off it veya I even said this earlier...

I never said you said that but to say they are the most important for a 1000 years when they are only 400 years old means you have to completely ignore the 600 years prior. and everything after.
And the Fact that people of wealth and power in England spoke French and the Educated wrote in Latin.
Therefore Latin and French texts both had a greater hold for longer and Shakespearean English takes expression and words from both

2. 'England was never a nation of great authors'... Get real lol
only Englishmen think otherwise... Particularly before Shakespeare when most writing was in Latin like the REST of the WESTERN WORLD. the Idea that England is separate from the rest is simply the peasants view but Religious and Legal codes were all in Latin. Ideas, Technology and Morals are All communicated across the western world in Latin over the past 1000 years works in Latin have defined the Entire Western World More than all the English works put together.

WS is case in Point the Best England can put up as an Author is a Playwright

veya_victaous wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Ok I'm not going to go into length due to one error you made concerning my argument and another hint of bias.

1. I never said we should ignore everything else, in fact I pointed out the British system, which looks at two plays at most, was the right balance. I understand people make daft presumptions a times but come off it veya I even said this earlier...

I never said you said that but to say they are the most important for a 1000 years when they are only 400 years old means you have to completely ignore the 600 years prior. and everything after.
And the Fact that people of wealth and power in England spoke French and the Educated wrote in Latin.
Therefore Latin and French texts both had a greater hold for longer and Shakespearean English takes expression and words from both

2. 'England was never a nation of great authors'... Get real lol
only Englishmen think otherwise... Particularly before Shakespeare when most writing was in Latin like the REST of the WESTERN WORLD. the Idea that England is separate from the rest is simply the peasants view but Religious and Legal codes were all in Latin. Ideas, Technology and Morals are All communicated across the western world in Latin over the past 1000 years works in Latin have defined the Entire Western World More than all the English works put together.

WS is case in Point the Best England can put up as an Author is a Playwright

1. I think we have a miscommunication here. I am talking about purely works written in the English language- for the reason of this being discussed in the context of English Language education in English speaking countries. It is only for this reason that I discount much of what came before, written in French or Latin, when being compared with the extensive works of WS. Discussing WS in the wider context of world literature would be different, but that isn't what we are talking about. Once again there is no completely ignoring anything, my subjective view (and all our views on matters of 'the most...' are subjective) is the WS is the most important, but not at the expense of everything else.

2. Great English authors:

WS
Geoffrey Chaucher
Charles Dickens
Jane Austen
George Eliot
George Orwell
Christopher Marlowe
John Keats
John Locke
William Wordsworth

There are obviously many more, but to say England was never a nation of great authors is a clear ignorance.

It is and once believed that Marlowe is behind Shakespeare plays.

Have to agree with Eilzel on English writers, no idea what you are going on about Veya

Eilzel wrote:2. 'England was never a nation of great authors'... Get real lol

Eh?? Buy an Englishman a third drink and you've got an Irishman...the best writers on earth.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:I don't know about whether Shakespeare existed or not, I'm kinda with les on all of this, and agree on his take throughout the thread.
I don't tbink WS books are the only works worth studying either, but to day his books hold no story or morals is silly; they all have a moral and they all tell the standard story of love, with all it's many emotions and colours.

By the by, we studied the great To Kill a Mockingbird for our mock GCSEs.

TKAM is another that needs to go Good golly gee, the books the teachers forced down our throats that were basically from a different time and in a different language ... Scarlet Letter was a big one (Hawthorne wrote some great short stories, though). Moby Dick, of course (why not Bartleby the Scrivener?). I had to wait until after public schooling to get to Huxley. Had to wait till university to read any Conrad or Dostoevsky, let alone the likes of Anne Tyler or Joyce Carol Oates. Had to discover Kurt Vonnegut Jr. on my own in high school, though I'm glad I did obviously

My son is studying The Woman in Black.
I think TKAM is a good book. What's wrong with it?

Eilzel wrote:...................................

2. Great English authors:

WS
Geoffrey Chaucher
Charles Dickens
Jane Austen
George Eliot
George Orwell
Christopher Marlowe
John Keats
John Locke
William Wordsworth

There are obviously many more, but to say England was never a nation of great authors is a clear ignorance.

I BELIEVE that we all know that there was one English writer who stands head and shoulders above the rest of his 20th Century cohorts  ~  J.R.R. Tolkien  !

And then what about C.S. Lewis, Edgar Rice Burroughs; and of course Rudyard Kipling and a couple of others who had carried over from the 19th century..
And of course you can't overlook the earlier Lord Byron, Percy Blythe Shelley and Mary Shelley in the 18th century and their crazy stoner friends and their infamous opium-fueled benders for days on end in Switzerland and Italy, that gave us the likes of Prometheus, Frankenstein, Vampyre, and more horror stories later on..      

Lone Wolf wrote:

Eilzel wrote:...................................

2. Great English authors:

WS
Geoffrey Chaucher
Charles Dickens
Jane Austen
George Eliot
George Orwell
Christopher Marlowe
John Keats
John Locke
William Wordsworth

There are obviously many more, but to say England was never a nation of great authors is a clear ignorance.

I BELIEVE that we all know that there was one English writer who stands head and shoulders above the rest of his 20th Century cohorts  ~  J.R.R. Tolkien  !

And then what about C.S. Lewis, Edgar Rice Burroughs; and of course Rudyard Kipling and a couple of others who had carried over from the 19th century..
And of course you can't overlook the earlier Lord Byron and Blythe and Mary Shelley in the 18th century and their crazy friends and their infamous opium-fueled benders for days on end in Switzerland and Italy, that gave us the likes of Prometheus, Frankenstein, Vampyre, and more horror stories later on..      

Indeed Wolf, add all those names and more. I was just naming a few. Not bad for a nation not really known for 'great authors' haha

It's all about class les

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:I don't know about whether Shakespeare existed or not, I'm kinda with les on all of this, and agree on his take throughout the thread.
I don't tbink WS books are the only works worth studying either, but to day his books hold no story or morals is silly; they all have a moral and they all tell the standard story of love, with all it's many emotions and colours.

By the by, we studied the great To Kill a Mockingbird for our mock GCSEs.

TKAM is another that needs to go Good golly gee, the books the teachers forced down our throats that were basically from a different time and in a different language ... Scarlet Letter was a big one (Hawthorne wrote some great short stories, though). Moby Dick, of course (why not Bartleby the Scrivener?). I had to wait until after public schooling to get to Huxley. Had to wait till university to read any Conrad or Dostoevsky, let alone the likes of Anne Tyler or Joyce Carol Oates. Had to discover Kurt Vonnegut Jr. on my own in high school, though I'm glad I did obviously

My son is studying The Woman in Black.
I think TKAM is a good book. What's wrong with it?

Good question; I tried reading it when I was 16 and very depressed ... maybe I'd like it better now.

It's a fantastjc book and film Ben.
I think you'd like it.

Order it on amazon and read it. Let me know what you think x

eddie wrote:It's a fantastjc book and film Ben.
I think you'd like it.

Order it on amazon and read it. Let me know what you think x

Actually found it for free here: https://archive.org/details/ToKillAMockingbird_201307

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:It's a fantastjc book and film Ben.
I think you'd like it.

Order it on amazon and read it. Let me know what you think x

Actually found it for free here: https://archive.org/details/ToKillAMockingbird_201307

Cheapskate

Eilzel wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote:

Eilzel wrote:...................................

2. Great English authors:

WS
Geoffrey Chaucher
Charles Dickens
Jane Austen
George Eliot
George Orwell
Christopher Marlowe
John Keats
John Locke
William Wordsworth

There are obviously many more, but to say England was never a nation of great authors is a clear ignorance.

I BELIEVE that we all know that there was one English writer who stands head and shoulders above the rest of his 20th Century cohorts  ~  J.R.R. Tolkien  !

And then what about C.S. Lewis, Edgar Rice Burroughs; and of course Rudyard Kipling and a couple of others who had carried over from the 19th century..
And of course you can't overlook the earlier Lord Byron and Blythe and Mary Shelley in the 18th century and their crazy friends and their infamous opium-fueled benders for days on end in Switzerland and Italy, that gave us the likes of Prometheus, Frankenstein, Vampyre, and more horror stories later on..      

Indeed Wolf, add all those names and more. I was just naming a few. Not bad for a nation not really known for 'great authors'  haha

Umm you're list contained 1, Orwell

Geoffrey Chaucher is old but not good main claim to fame is being the first guy from England to write original work. plenty of older translated literature is better.

George Eliot and Austen are overrated massively call them great authors is like saying the Writers of Neighbours are the Great Screen writers popularity doesn't mean it is good.

John Keats is a poet
Marlowe (like WS) playwright, poet
Wordsworth poet songwriter (a.k.a Kayne West)
None are a Match For Oscar Wilde their Irish Contemporary (also sort of the point, Ireland with a much smaller population produces as many if not more notable writers)


Locke Is a fuckwit that naive stupidity is shown wrong everyday, he is father of the idea that being wealthy means you worked hard, merely a propagandist propping up hereditary claims to wealth.

Lewis and Tolkien are Good and popular and from that last 100 years (So hardly evidence of a nation being known for something)

Dickens is classic work and hard to critique because it is so clichéd by later productions.

Modern English Authors are good (or at least some of the better current authors are English)

veya_victaous wrote:if it is true the courtier would be spewing now

But possible
interesting that there is so little from him personally I always thought it was quite well documented from they way it is taught in schools

If what I read somewhere is to be believed, many (under a certain age) in the UK would not know if he is for real or not, as the history books may well have been changed within the schools during the sixties. As for the older generation a lot have dementia and can't remember.

Veya, I find you have moved from actual debate to deeply subjective judgment of some of the greatest and most popular writers in English language. I'm not going to go through each author you mentioned, since that would be moving away from the real point. Many consider those people all great English authors.

Yet 4 of them are Poets and playwrights So Again not Really Great Authors. In the Case of WS his work was never even meant to be read by the Audience it is Performed by Actors. If the world was not so full of English Propaganda You would not even call him an Author because he isn't! he his a playwright and just like a screen writer is different than an Author SO is a Playwright. Or does the guy that wrote the Script to Pacific rim now get included in literature and get to call him self and Author????

'English Authors' Well yes if you ONLY want to compare these people to OTHER ENGLISHMEN sure they are good but I think THAT IS MY POINT.
When Compared outside the VERY LIMITED realm of England (like just go to Ireland) they are not that great.

Very Few Are good enough where people in 1000 years will translate them into whatever language they speak then... As opposed to ALL the authors you ignore, whose work has already passed that test by having English Copies of their work.

I can Almost Guarantee NONE of the people on your list will still be having their works translated into new languages over 2000 years after their death.
A GREAT (not just good) Author MUST have the work translated, otherwise it may not be a 'universal tale that will appeal to anyone' and could just be Nationalist monocultural Rubbish written to appeal to a specific demographic in a limited context.


If we are talking about the language we speak then WS is irrelevant as too far removed from the modern tongue, it is written in time and regionally specific slang that has become extinct. Again Dr Dre has greater relevance to the way we speak today.

The 6 most translated non political/religious titles ( I was going to stop a 5 but the 6th was English)

Pinocchio, Carlo Collodi Italy Italian

The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint Exupéry France French

Andersen's Fairy Tales, Hans Christian Andersen Denmark Danish

Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, Jules Verne France French

The Adventures of Asterix, René Goscinny & Albert Uderzo France French

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll England English

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_literary_works_by_number_of_translations

and if you look at the list most of the English work that is highly translated it is American English
Goosebumps series by R. L. Stine has been translated into more languages that WS because it has greater universal appeal to someone not concerned about 'it being made by an Englishmen' and just judging it's content.

AND all seven named there are children's and young teen's titles !!!

MUST be a lesson in there somewhere..

Lone Wolf wrote:

AND all seven named there are children's and young teen's titles !!!

MUST be a lesson in there somewhere..

yep all the good stories go to kids

and a lot of 'proper' novels are overly pompous.

The Thing with Shakespeare is very little of his work is 'an original tale' it is just a retelling of an older bard tales, other countries already have their own version.

Shakespeare is good i enjoyed his work more than anyone else during school (including Tolkien) but it is not ground breaking. even at the time the main ground breaking-ness of WS is the fact it is all in 'English'.

@Wolf
by the way Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea is not a kids book any more than Moby dick

After 20,000 leagues the next Adult books are
The Alchemist Paulo Coelho Brazil Portuguese
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn Mark Twain United States English
Nineteen Eighty-Four George Orwell United Kingdom English

and 1984 was published in 1949 and I conceded the 1900's (modern) authors are better but Still England by comparison to other nations in not a Nation of Great Authors literature or Philosophy.

Sorry Veya but your views are just your views, which I doubt many are going to agree with as seen by the views above. The fact is many works clearly are seen as great as they are stiull very much used today, that is telling in itself. It is all down to personal taste after all, so nobody is really right or wrong here.

No one has mentioned Hank Janson, a good old English Author, [real name Stephen Frances] The sort of book that was giggled over in the boys toilet.

veya_victaous wrote:..........................

@Wolf
by the way Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea is not a kids book any more than Moby dick  

     ACTUALLY, veya ~ there was a swag of famous and popular books that were published between the mid-18th and early 20th century, that were indeed first published as 'Adult' fiction ~ and then afterwards the publishers later on edited them severely and 'tamed' them down, adding in "abridged", young adults/teenagers (apparently the term "teenager" wasn't invented until the late 19th century ?) and children's versions, therefore virtually more than doubling their potential markets...

THESE works included the likes of :
Gullliver's Travels
Moby Dick
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
Swiss Family Robinson
Alice in Wonderland; and Through the Looking Glass
The Time Machine
Sherlock Holmes;      and dozens of other well known titles [veya has named Huckleberry Finn, and even Ninteen Eighty-Four, already..].

I have reprinted copies of the original Moby Dick and Gulliver's Travels editions here, printed in the same way as the 1st editions -
Moby Dick has pretty violent scenes and strong language [relatively speaking] in the original version, which were removed to give the more watered-down children's and young adults versions.
Gulliver's Travels is actually quite a raunchy story in it's original edition ~ including a couple of full-on sexual encounters for Gulliver !

Brasidas wrote:Sorry Veya but your views are just your views, which I doubt many are going to agree with as seen by the views above. The fact is many works clearly are seen as great as they are stiull very much used today, that is telling in itself. It is all down to personal taste after all, so nobody is really right or wrong here.

Or Statistics
making Lewis Carroll England greatest author for Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.
And Orwell Next

The Fact that WS isn't on the list of Authors Translated is Very telling about what the worlds opinion is on the matter is

Lone Wolf wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:..........................

@Wolf
by the way Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea is not a kids book any more than Moby dick  

     ACTUALLY, veya ~ there was a swag of famous and popular books that were published between the mid-18th and early 20th century, that were indeed first published as 'Adult' fiction ~ and then afterwards the publishers later on edited them severely and 'tamed' them down, adding in "abridged", young adults/teenagers (apparently the term "teenager" wasn't invented until the late 19th century ?) and children's versions, therefore virtually more than doubling their potential markets...

THESE works included the likes of :
Gullliver's Travels
Moby Dick
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
Swiss Family Robinson
Alice in Wonderland; and Through the Looking Glass
The Time Machine
Sherlock Holmes;      and dozens of other well known titles [veya has named Huckleberry Finn, and even Ninteen Eighty-Four, already..].

I have reprinted copies of the original Moby Dick and Gulliver's Travels editions here, printed in the same way as the 1st editions -
Moby Dick has pretty violent scenes and strong language [relatively speaking] in the original version, which were removed to give the more watered-down children's and young adults versions.
Gulliver's Travels is actually quite a raunchy story in it's original edition ~ including a couple of full-on sexual encounters for Gulliver !

Even the original Alice in wonderland is pretty creepy.
I wonder if some of it is 'like Simpsons' in that it is sort of targeted at children but sprinkled with adult jokes so that it is enjoyable at any age. plus they didn't have the same sensibilities that we do today around 'protecting children'

veya_victaous wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Sorry Veya but your views are just your views, which I doubt many are going to agree with as seen by the views above. The fact is many works clearly are seen as great as they are stiull very much used today, that is telling in itself. It is all down to personal taste after all, so nobody is really right or wrong here.

Or Statistics
making Lewis Carroll England greatest author for Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.
And Orwell Next

The Fact that WS isn't on the list of Authors Translated is Very telling about what the worlds opinion is on the matter is

Over what time period and how many years veya?
Weak argument mate

the history of western literature I'm not trying to limit it to a specific period to attempt to promote Nationalist Patriotic propaganda. (although it does seem to limit to AD works, noticeable lack of Horace, Aesop, Virgil and Homer)

Just trying to display a more accurate world history you know one based on facts as opposed to the English propaganda. Why? Les Thinks KJB and WS are Most important for 1000 years!!!! how much propaganda must he have been fed to think that???? For starters both are not even half that age.
You may notice the entirely of the counter argument is from the limited period of English World Dominance? funny that. it's called institutional racism, the Novels that Make England Seem most Important are Also the most important novels according to English Propaganda.

And I stand by My Statement A nation that only Started Writing 'original' works a couple of hundreds years ago, Is not known For Great Authors.
more support for the argument is that Ireland can Match England 1 for 1 even though it has only 9th the population. Ireland is Actually Known for Great Poets and Authors.

Again Veya it is based on a view you or some others have where clearly throughout history many English writers have been hailed as excellent, none of which you can deny.
You seem to have just about everything against the English .
Sorry mate, you just have to accept we have had so many great writers, can you show such a list for many other countries?
I very much doubt it in the same vain and in their works.
A good point on this is also how many on popularity have been made into plays and films.

That speaks volumes in itself.

at the end of the day sometimes it comes down to personal preference.

I personally read very little fiction these days (basically 20 years) as I just remember during high school and O and A levels English Lit how awful it was deconstructing "great" works instead of just being allowed to read it, enjoy it and discuss it freely.