There seems to be a lot more attention lately to the subject of who really wrote the works of Shakespeare.
My novel, The Shakespeare Conspiracy, of course is the story of Christopher Marlowe really having written the works. You can check the site: www.TheShakespeareConspiracy.com.
But items seem to be popping up all over the internet about other theories.
Brian Sweeney today wrote that "A vigorous debate continues to rage as to the true identity of the author of the Shakespearian plays and sonnets, a debate that has gone to the highest court of the land.
"A Wall Street Journal article noted that liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens rendered his verdict that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' the bard of Avon was not William Shakespeare and that the works ascribed to William Shakespeare were actually written by the 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere.
"Remarkably, in rare agreement with his ideological counterpart, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia concurred with Stevens. Stevens was also enjoined in the decision by the late Harry Blackman. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was always a swing vote on the court, stayed true to form with her nuanced opinion that Shakespeare did not write the Shakespeare plays but also did not render an opinion as to who did."
Jonathan Kay's new book Among theTruthers, states that "For a while, Sigmund Freud believed that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet after his [Shakespeare's] father died. When Freud wrote The Interpretation of Dreams, he cited the play as a key Oedpial work. But in 1919, historians discovered that Shakespeare wrote the play before his father died. How did Freud respond? He became obsessed with the conspiracy theory that the 17th Earl of Oxford had written the plays credited to "William Shakespeare."
The world seems to suddenly have become obsessed with the real author of the Shakespearean works.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Monday, May 23, 2011
Edward De Verre, the 17th Earl of Oxford
The Shakespeare Conspiracy isn't the only work that is concerned with the true writers of the works by "The Bard of Stratford on Avon."
Another movie, scheduled to be released this coming September 30, is entitled Anonymous and it deals with the same subject.
In Anonymous, however, the real author of the Shakespearean works is not Christopher Marlowe, but rather Edward De Verre, the 17th Earl of Oxford.
The three most popular candidates for the real authorship of the works are Christopher Marlowe, Edward De Verre and Francis Bacon. And, of course, each candidate has a myriad of followers, each more convinced than the next.
But the new movie has quite a pedigreed. It stars Vanessa Redgrave and Derek Jacobi, both big names. And the director is Roland Emmerich (who directed Independence Day and 2012).
The previews are already showing in movie houses across the nation. (You can see the trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBmnkk0QW3Q).
This other movie will certainly not hurt The Shakespeare Conspiracy motion picture, scheduled for release in 2012. Actually, there seems to be a plethora of interest lately in the real authorship of Shakespeare's works.
A book will soon be released is entitled Blood and Ink by D.K. Marley. It also contends that Christopher Marlowe wrote the works.
Even though the cases for Bacon and De Verre are strong, they don't compare with the proofs that Marlowe was the actual author. What has kept Marlowe's name from being the only candidate is the fact that the world thinks he was dead when Shakespeare supposedly wrote all those works. As The Shakespeare Conspiracy explains, Marlowe really didn't die, but instead faked his own death to avoid being tried for treason and heresy.
Yes, the conspiracy theories are flourishing.
Another movie, scheduled to be released this coming September 30, is entitled Anonymous and it deals with the same subject.
In Anonymous, however, the real author of the Shakespearean works is not Christopher Marlowe, but rather Edward De Verre, the 17th Earl of Oxford.
The three most popular candidates for the real authorship of the works are Christopher Marlowe, Edward De Verre and Francis Bacon. And, of course, each candidate has a myriad of followers, each more convinced than the next.
But the new movie has quite a pedigreed. It stars Vanessa Redgrave and Derek Jacobi, both big names. And the director is Roland Emmerich (who directed Independence Day and 2012).
The previews are already showing in movie houses across the nation. (You can see the trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBmnkk0QW3Q).
This other movie will certainly not hurt The Shakespeare Conspiracy motion picture, scheduled for release in 2012. Actually, there seems to be a plethora of interest lately in the real authorship of Shakespeare's works.
A book will soon be released is entitled Blood and Ink by D.K. Marley. It also contends that Christopher Marlowe wrote the works.
Even though the cases for Bacon and De Verre are strong, they don't compare with the proofs that Marlowe was the actual author. What has kept Marlowe's name from being the only candidate is the fact that the world thinks he was dead when Shakespeare supposedly wrote all those works. As The Shakespeare Conspiracy explains, Marlowe really didn't die, but instead faked his own death to avoid being tried for treason and heresy.
Yes, the conspiracy theories are flourishing.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Writing the Script
I just finished doing the movie script of the book. It was not easy. At one point I really ran into a dead end where transferring the book to a movie script was almost impossible. I just skipped over that part and wrote the rest. It was easier when I went back to that part.
The idea was to make the movie a historical film that intertwines both of the conspiracy theories (Marlowe's and Shakespeare's) into a mystery movie that puts the pieces together to offer the only possible solution. The novel is a little different. It's a wild romp through 16th Century Elizabethan England -- kind of a rapidly unfolding detective narrative. I had more space to fill it with comedy, intrigue, murder and an illicit love story. Although every detail in the book is based on facts and actual documents, the movie gives flesh and dialogue to all those caught in the conspiracy.
The movie also exposes the scandalous real Shakespeare, with his sexual peccadilloes and mistresses, and reveals the world of Marlowe, who reveled in the gay world as did so many English kings at that time. However, Marlowe had to live his life as a fugitive while Shakespeare fronted for him and received all the glory.
Where I had plenty of space in the book to write almost anything I wanted to add, the movie script had to be shorter and so deciding what to leave out was a major problem.
Oh, well. We'll see how it plays.
The idea was to make the movie a historical film that intertwines both of the conspiracy theories (Marlowe's and Shakespeare's) into a mystery movie that puts the pieces together to offer the only possible solution. The novel is a little different. It's a wild romp through 16th Century Elizabethan England -- kind of a rapidly unfolding detective narrative. I had more space to fill it with comedy, intrigue, murder and an illicit love story. Although every detail in the book is based on facts and actual documents, the movie gives flesh and dialogue to all those caught in the conspiracy.
The movie also exposes the scandalous real Shakespeare, with his sexual peccadilloes and mistresses, and reveals the world of Marlowe, who reveled in the gay world as did so many English kings at that time. However, Marlowe had to live his life as a fugitive while Shakespeare fronted for him and received all the glory.
Where I had plenty of space in the book to write almost anything I wanted to add, the movie script had to be shorter and so deciding what to leave out was a major problem.
Oh, well. We'll see how it plays.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Why Marlowe?
I got an email from a member of the International Marlowe Shakespeare Society of London.
The writer had some serious reservations about Marlowe having written the works of the Bard of Stratford on Avon.
"Why not Edward De Verre, the 17 Earl of Oxford or even Francis Bacon?" she asked. As a member of the society, she, of course, wanted to believe that the real author was Marlowe. But many other names get tossed into the arguments a lot.
Well, I referred her to the premise on the back of the book:
For centuries, two questions have plagued historians:
--How could Christopher Marlowe, a known spy and England's foremost playwright, be suspiciously murdered and secretly buried in unmarked grave - just days before he was to be tried for treason and sentenced to death?
--How could William Shakespeare replace Marlowe as England's greatest playwright virtually overnight - when Shakespeare had never written anything before and was merely an unknown actor? Historians have noted that he was better known at that time "for holding horses for the gentry while they watched plays."
Actually, the easier argument is that Shakespeare, the actor did not write the plays. The harder argument is to try to prove who actually did write them.
I feel that the final third of my book The Shakespeare Conspiracy pretty much proves that it was Marlowe. That supplement to the book explains that though it is a novel, all the known facts in the book (except one) are accurate. That one deviation is clearly spelled out in the supplement and I explain why it was done.
But why Marlowe? For starters there are about a hundred duplicate lines in the works of Shakespeare and Marlowe. This is not true of Shakespeare and other authors of the time. Why would England's most famous playwright borrow (steal?) from a dead poet. In one case (Merry Wives of Windsor) Shakespeare boldly uses eight consecutive lines from Marlowe's poem ("The Passionate Shepherd to his Love") without any reference to the fact that it was from another work. It's just part of the play dialogue.
The supplement has many other things that I consider to be proofs.
I told her to read the book. She'll see.
The writer had some serious reservations about Marlowe having written the works of the Bard of Stratford on Avon.
"Why not Edward De Verre, the 17 Earl of Oxford or even Francis Bacon?" she asked. As a member of the society, she, of course, wanted to believe that the real author was Marlowe. But many other names get tossed into the arguments a lot.
Well, I referred her to the premise on the back of the book:
For centuries, two questions have plagued historians:
--How could Christopher Marlowe, a known spy and England's foremost playwright, be suspiciously murdered and secretly buried in unmarked grave - just days before he was to be tried for treason and sentenced to death?
--How could William Shakespeare replace Marlowe as England's greatest playwright virtually overnight - when Shakespeare had never written anything before and was merely an unknown actor? Historians have noted that he was better known at that time "for holding horses for the gentry while they watched plays."
Actually, the easier argument is that Shakespeare, the actor did not write the plays. The harder argument is to try to prove who actually did write them.
I feel that the final third of my book The Shakespeare Conspiracy pretty much proves that it was Marlowe. That supplement to the book explains that though it is a novel, all the known facts in the book (except one) are accurate. That one deviation is clearly spelled out in the supplement and I explain why it was done.
But why Marlowe? For starters there are about a hundred duplicate lines in the works of Shakespeare and Marlowe. This is not true of Shakespeare and other authors of the time. Why would England's most famous playwright borrow (steal?) from a dead poet. In one case (Merry Wives of Windsor) Shakespeare boldly uses eight consecutive lines from Marlowe's poem ("The Passionate Shepherd to his Love") without any reference to the fact that it was from another work. It's just part of the play dialogue.
The supplement has many other things that I consider to be proofs.
I told her to read the book. She'll see.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
The Shakespeare Conspiracy: The Movie
Well, good news came this week from the movie producers who have the option on the film version of my book, The Shakespeare Conspiracy.
They seem to feel they have the money to start pre-production work this fall and hope to be shooting the movie by this winter. The present plan is to shoot it in Winnipeg, Canada.
The two major producers are The Motion Picture Hall of Fame Corporation and Barone Films. Both of them have done some good work in feature films. Barone Films just completed filming the movie version of the stage musical Forever Plaid.
There's no word yet on anyone starring in the film, though they have batted around quite a few names. I, of course, have my own ideas about who would be perfect for each role, but I'm not sure the author of the book has any say.
My own thinking is that Colin Farrell would be perfect as Christopher Marlowe. And Nathan Lane would be a scream as Lord Henry Wriothesley. You'd need someone dignified and deliberate for Sir Thomas. Maybe Ben Afflect. Shakespeare (because of the way the movie is written) should be a klutz. Someone like John C. Reilly. But I imagine that's a cast that might cost more than a modern historical thriller could afford.
I'll keep you posted.
You can get the story of the movie by going to the book web site:
www.TheShakespeareConspiracy.com
They seem to feel they have the money to start pre-production work this fall and hope to be shooting the movie by this winter. The present plan is to shoot it in Winnipeg, Canada.
The two major producers are The Motion Picture Hall of Fame Corporation and Barone Films. Both of them have done some good work in feature films. Barone Films just completed filming the movie version of the stage musical Forever Plaid.
There's no word yet on anyone starring in the film, though they have batted around quite a few names. I, of course, have my own ideas about who would be perfect for each role, but I'm not sure the author of the book has any say.
My own thinking is that Colin Farrell would be perfect as Christopher Marlowe. And Nathan Lane would be a scream as Lord Henry Wriothesley. You'd need someone dignified and deliberate for Sir Thomas. Maybe Ben Afflect. Shakespeare (because of the way the movie is written) should be a klutz. Someone like John C. Reilly. But I imagine that's a cast that might cost more than a modern historical thriller could afford.
I'll keep you posted.
You can get the story of the movie by going to the book web site:
www.TheShakespeareConspiracy.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)