To be, or not to be, that is the question:

Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer

The slings and arrows of the Shakespeare’s authorship question,

Or to take up arms against this imposing wall of troubled sea.

After reading a variety of sources on the Shakespeare authorship debate, I feel compelled to write my opinion and express in kind nature why I believe Shakespeare was the author behind the works published under his name.

After reading about the Shakespeare authorship debate one thing remains clear is that the works of Shakespeare was not written by one person but appear to be a collaborative work and contains the work done by many other poets and playwrights.

Most great movies, operas, or plays produced today are collaborative in nature and they involve a variety of writers. What the authorship question really tells you about Shakespeare is that he was a real author; he collaborated and likely involved many people in the writings of his works. He was all too human. A cruelty that is not all too kind.

No writer, except those at the beginning stages of their careers, write in complete isolation. Professors often depend on graduate students to collect and analyze data. Most if not all professional writers employ editors to help them with their texts. The very people critiquing Shakespeare’s authorship likely collaborated on their published works and had many people help them write their texts. Generally, the themes in works are attributed to the author. Writing for professional purposes is a collaborative process.

A more interesting question surrounding the authorship question is how much of the plays did he write?

He likely was the lead playwright and director of the works published under his name. But how could lowly Shakespeare have captured such picturesque descriptions of brutish royal life or of Italy? The same way another writer might; he could have consulted his friends and experts to make sure that his texts were accurate. When authors write books, they consult other people.

As a fellow writer, the biggest argument in favor of Shakespeare being the lead author of the works attributed to his name is the quality of work that was produced under his alleged synonym. Ask yourself the following questions: How much time would it take a professional writer to write a play like Hamlet? Also, who else has published work that was of equal quality to the plays attributed to Shakespeare? The only answer to this question is Bard of Avon.

There is no other writer who has demonstrated that he or she could have produced or orchestrated such a deep and vast amount of literary work as did the sweep swan of Avon. I can’t think of another author good enough to write his works.  Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, or even Ben Jonson, in their own publish and unpublished work never ever produced anything to suggest they were cable of such feats as writing a play like Hamlet.

If someone told me that Joe Blow, or rather Joe Aristocrat Blow, wrote Moby Dick instead of Herman Melville, I would first say, “you have to be kidding me.” My second inclination would be to want to see some other published work, or even unpublished work, written by Joe Aristocrat Blow to suggest that he was capable of writing such a work. There are levels to writing the same way there are different skill levels in basketball. Some writers are far more talented than other writers. And the Bard of Avon is the Wilt Chamberlain of Poets.

Let’s start with the basics; Shakespeare’s first publication that arguably made him the favorite poet during his time was Venus and Adonis. Venus and Adonis is a narrative poem about Venus’s love for Adonis.  Despite the Anti-Stratfordian’s claim that Shakespeare was not a writer, the poem is dedicated to his patron. This is highly suggestive that he wrote it. This poem is considered to be one of the finest poems ever written and is suggestive of the talents of someone that could later write about the love that Romeo had for Juliet.

Edward de Vere never published anything in his name that is remotely comparable to Venus and Adonis. As for the Stigma of Print argument, Edward de Vere published plenty of poems in his name.

As for Shakespeare’s education, many great writers have lacked formal educations. Fiction writing is more of a creative endeavor, maybe that is why they call it creative writing. Robert Frost lacked a college degree as did Tolstoy. I believe Ben Johnson, Shakespeare’s contemporary, did not have a university education either.

The original college dropout was the writer, not the tech entrepreneur. Sorry Bill Gates.

The deeper message behind the Oxfordian’s authorship question is dangerous. It attempts to take away the greatest literary feat in the history of mankind and put into the hands of nobility, as if being a writer is a divine right like being a landlord. As if your family name indicates the quality which you can write with the pen. This is a dangerous form of British Nationalism. The Anti-Stratfordians represent dangerous and junk scholarship that is attempting to erode the very legacy of what many believe to be the basis for the study of writing: Shakespeare. All writers and students begin their study of English with Shakespeare. He is the bedrock of learning to become a writer.

Shakespeare is not the poet that many wished for when we imagined the author of Hamlet. Yes, he is not Hamlet. However, the important quality is that he could write Hamlet. The aristocratic part is irrelevant. Reading Shakespeare for some may require the removal of your silver spoon. However, for some, it appears that “Shakespeare” being Joe Aristocrat Blow is more important than the Bard of Avon.