Shakespeare - Tudor Revisionist Whore or Great Storyteller

[Taverner]

I heard an interesting report earlier, that Richard III was not the evil, plotting despot that the play makes him out to be - but rather a good king who was maligned by the Tudor family.

Of course Shakespeare was in bed with the Tudors, and it was in his best interest to paint a good picture of that line...so was he the Fox News of his day?

[aden_nak]

1. Well, in his day, if you weren't Fox News, you were, you know, DEAD.

[hickman1937]

2. Henry Tudor killed Edward V and his brother.

Shakespeare wrote the cover up.

[Deep13]

3. What about Henry V,...

...an elobarate, moving and superbly written apology for the murderous campaign of aggression into another country for the expressed purpose of claiming it as a vassal state. The French call him the Butcher of Agincourt.

[Taverner]

4. And not only that

If you look at it from an empire standpoint, France was lost soon after. In the grand scheme of things, it meant NOTHING for England, just wasted lives for the sake of wasted lives.

[trackfan]

5. What must be done he did. No more, no less

the Bard could be expected to perform.
To royalty's desires he must contort
his pen. Yet, we're the richer for his art.

[acmavm]

6. He fudged on historical fact, that's for sure. But he was writing for his

royal patrons, who were a Tudors. That being said, there's still plenty of historical and non-historical stuff to make him worthy of being called the greatest playwright that ever lived.

Please remember, history is ALWAYS written from the viewpoint of the winner. That's why human history is so one-sided and wrong (in a lot of cases). Same with the literature of any given age.

[iconoclastic cat]

7. How about both?

[Reverend_Smitty]

8. I had an English teacher who once said...

that Shakespeare mangled more history than Disney movies could ever have (and we all know what pillars of historical accuracy Disney is). That said, he told damn fine stories with beautiful language. I suppose if you wanted to know the real story, there's always history books.

[Mutley]

9. There is a massive debate about this going on the English Department

at my school. My one prof comes in pissed off due to this nearly everyday. BTW, he thinks Shakespeare was a Tudor Revisionist Whore. I personally don't have enough information on the subject to say either way, but I did think some of his plays were okay.

[aden_nak]

10. Ben Johnston's "Isle of Dogs" - Google it sometime.

That's what happens if you write a play that the ruling class frowns upon. Don't bother trying to read it, though. Every known copy was destroyed.

[Hugin]

11. Shakespeare was filler between the main events...

You know, the bear baiting.

That's what people *really* came to see.

[libhill]

12. A writer of historical fiction,

works of literature - which is what Shakespeare was - is allowed to use "poetic license" - he was no better or worse than Alexander Dumas, James Fenimore Cooper, Sir Walter Scott, or any of the others - you can read "Last of the Mohicans" or "Twenty Years After" and appreciate them without assuming a hidden agenda, or that these works are accurate history,can you not?

[WeRQ4U]

13. That was my first impression as well.

Although he may have taken some creative liberties with his stories, whether forced to do so or not, his stories were told with mastery. What's the difference between that and his obvious works of fiction?

[libhill]

14. Exactly

a well told story is a well told story, and should be enjoyed on that level. If I want straight history, I'll go to Will Durant.