Re: The whole "Shakespeare is a hoax" thang:

First, remember that the Earl of Oxford theory was first (and most loudly) put forward by a descendant of the Earl of Oxford.

Second, I find it easier to believe the "conventional" biography of Will (that he started out as an actor in a traveling troupe, and then discovered his real gift was writing) because of the depth and realism of all his characters, regardless of class -- from prostitutes to kings. It is far easier to get an accurate view of all the levels of society from the bottom up (and in the 17th century, you couldn't get much lower than an actor) than it is from the top down.

Hesperis: Thanks for fixing my link (moral: don't try doing blickies when you're sleepy!)

Lady P: couldn't agree more that the teaching of high school Shakespeare is tragedy-heavy. 'Tis a shame, really, 'cause nothing gets a teenager's interest than a really good (bad) sex joke. Also, that the plays are too often read -- every time you come to an unfamiliar word or phrase, you have to check the extra-small print footnotes, then go back to the line -- that is no way to get a sense of the rhythm, much less the meaning of the words... But if you hear the line spoken, and see the accompanying action, then you figure out the meaning for yourself without even realizing it.

And I agree about Much Ado -- I think it's my all time favorite of his comedies (although some good stuff was cut out, I highly recommend the movie version done by Kenneth Branaugh [?]). I do wish they would teach this instead of Romeo and Juliet. I think Benedick and Beatrice are much better role models as to what makes a healthy relationship, in the end (none of this whole suicide nonsense, for one thing).