Search
Search results
![40x40](/uploads/profile_image/eea/89998a42-aadd-4119-94bd-050e8cb62eea.jpg?m=1613574295)
Alex Ross Perry recommended Robocop (1987) in Movies (curated)
Anyone who knows me knows that I am a hardcore Shakespeare fan. One of my bosses at work knows this and let me borrow her copy of this book thinking that it would interest me. Unfortunately, it fell a little flat.
I do not agree with the main argument of this biography: that William Shakespeare was, in fact, only a pen name for Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. No. I do not agree with this claim, like so many other Shakespeare scholars and lovers because the "facts" put forth are just very thinly stretched ideas and concepts that cannot be proven.
This book, instead of pushing me to think about how this fact could even possibly be true, is more about the life of Edward de Vere and how some of the circumstances in his life would be able to loosely connect to the plays Shakespeare had written. In tying in the plays, Anderson thinks he is making a stronger claim for his argument, but is honestly just trying to connect things that are unalike to "prove" what he is thinking. As an English major, I don't really like that way of thinking much.
Most of what he was trying to argue could have been left out and, instead, just have the appendices left in there. In the approximately sixty pages of the four appendices, he stated what over three hundred pages could not. No, I do not agree with the argument he is making, but it seems like it is stronger and more coherent in the appendix.
I want to point out a specific quotation from the Appendix A on page 381 to make a point about this book. It states: The thesis of this book, the "Oxfordian" proposition that Edward de Vere was Shake-speare, is a theory built on circumstantial evidence. There is no single "smoking gun" document that leads one inexorably to the conclusion that de Vere wrote Hamlet, King Lear, the Sonnets, etc." I understand that it is difficult to try to prove a theory that many argue against (myself included), but basing your argument solely on circumstantial evidence is not the way to go. It makes the argument, at least to me, seem less realistic and, in all honesty, difficult to agree with. If you cannot prove someone is guilty solely based on circumstantial evidence, you should not try to prove a complex argument that a famous playwright was not a real person, but, in fact, a pseudonym for another historical figure around the same time.
The "facts" that de Vere's life has similar qualities to the plays written by Shakespeare leading to the thought that de Vere, himself, is Shakespeare is a stretch, and not a convincing one at that.
Overall, I did not enjoy this book and I did not find it convincing at all. It felt more like a history lesson about the background of Edward de Vere rather than any kind of argument towards the idea that he could have been Shakespeare.
In my heart of hearts, I will always believe that William Shakespeare was, in fact, a real man by the name of William Shakespeare, not some made up name for a man who wanted to keep his private life separate from the public.
I do not agree with the main argument of this biography: that William Shakespeare was, in fact, only a pen name for Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. No. I do not agree with this claim, like so many other Shakespeare scholars and lovers because the "facts" put forth are just very thinly stretched ideas and concepts that cannot be proven.
This book, instead of pushing me to think about how this fact could even possibly be true, is more about the life of Edward de Vere and how some of the circumstances in his life would be able to loosely connect to the plays Shakespeare had written. In tying in the plays, Anderson thinks he is making a stronger claim for his argument, but is honestly just trying to connect things that are unalike to "prove" what he is thinking. As an English major, I don't really like that way of thinking much.
Most of what he was trying to argue could have been left out and, instead, just have the appendices left in there. In the approximately sixty pages of the four appendices, he stated what over three hundred pages could not. No, I do not agree with the argument he is making, but it seems like it is stronger and more coherent in the appendix.
I want to point out a specific quotation from the Appendix A on page 381 to make a point about this book. It states: The thesis of this book, the "Oxfordian" proposition that Edward de Vere was Shake-speare, is a theory built on circumstantial evidence. There is no single "smoking gun" document that leads one inexorably to the conclusion that de Vere wrote Hamlet, King Lear, the Sonnets, etc." I understand that it is difficult to try to prove a theory that many argue against (myself included), but basing your argument solely on circumstantial evidence is not the way to go. It makes the argument, at least to me, seem less realistic and, in all honesty, difficult to agree with. If you cannot prove someone is guilty solely based on circumstantial evidence, you should not try to prove a complex argument that a famous playwright was not a real person, but, in fact, a pseudonym for another historical figure around the same time.
The "facts" that de Vere's life has similar qualities to the plays written by Shakespeare leading to the thought that de Vere, himself, is Shakespeare is a stretch, and not a convincing one at that.
Overall, I did not enjoy this book and I did not find it convincing at all. It felt more like a history lesson about the background of Edward de Vere rather than any kind of argument towards the idea that he could have been Shakespeare.
In my heart of hearts, I will always believe that William Shakespeare was, in fact, a real man by the name of William Shakespeare, not some made up name for a man who wanted to keep his private life separate from the public.
![40x40](/uploads/profile_image/41d/425bc86a-f326-4887-ada5-6e0a5f3b041d.jpg?m=1619623653)
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated JFK (1991) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
A gripping and highly complex drama/thriller based around the true and supposed events surrounding the assassination of JFK. This film passionately presents in argument that he was assassinated by members of his own government, and whist on paper Oliver Stone is saying such, the film spins a complex web of theories and conclusions that suggest and dismiss and reignite themselves, leaving a whole host of culprits.
But second shooter, Bell Helicopter, or Johnson’s coup or not, this film demonstrates the power politics meeting celluloid, dazzling its audience with such a plausible argument, and presenting it with such zeal that by the time you take a breath, you’re not sure what to believe, and often opt for the easy choice, taking on board the smoke and mirrors.
But when all is said and done, this is just a movie, and like the books it is based upon, not fact, just theory. But as a film, this is powerful and persuasive stuff…
But second shooter, Bell Helicopter, or Johnson’s coup or not, this film demonstrates the power politics meeting celluloid, dazzling its audience with such a plausible argument, and presenting it with such zeal that by the time you take a breath, you’re not sure what to believe, and often opt for the easy choice, taking on board the smoke and mirrors.
But when all is said and done, this is just a movie, and like the books it is based upon, not fact, just theory. But as a film, this is powerful and persuasive stuff…
i'm just able to skim this but i like it much better than his original book. there are tons of exercises and not as many quizzes. i guess it helps to know what kind of person you are in the relationship (contemptuous, defensive, etc) and to know your argument style. but with "seven principles" you're given the tools to help your marriage period. it doesn't make much of a difference if you're conciliatory or volatile. i'd recommend this book over the other.
![40x40](/uploads/profile_image/5db/461b0d80-ea51-4cae-9e6b-0884a63c35db.jpg?m=1566659393)
Leanne Crabtree (480 KP) rated Two Weeks Notice in Books
Jan 12, 2021
I did enjoy this. It took a while for things to progress into anything that was a little steamy but the tension was raging higher in every argument/exchange between them so it was really only a matter of time.
I was a little surprised by the bundle of energy that appeared a little after the half way point but I do have a soft spot for cute kids in my books.
I'm looking forward to reading more books by the author.
I was a little surprised by the bundle of energy that appeared a little after the half way point but I do have a soft spot for cute kids in my books.
I'm looking forward to reading more books by the author.
![40x40](/uploads/profile_image/a19/67cad57c-4ae8-4372-9511-0b2fd9167a19.jpg?m=1522325112)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Departed (2006) in Movies
Aug 7, 2017
Possibly Scorsese's best direction (3 more)
Outstanding performances
Cinematography
Golden dialogue
A Twisting Tale of Back-Stabbing and Lies
You could make an argument that this is the greatest crime movie ever committed to film. At the very least it's up there with other greats such as Pulp Fiction, The Godfather and Scorsese's own Goodfellas. I don't think I have ever been in as much shock after watching a movie as I was after this one, the ending is polarising, but I love it. A perfect movie in every way.
![40x40](/uploads/profile_image/b07/b8e02838-7896-4949-9c99-0fb5a64a3b07.jpg?m=1614005423)
Greg Mottola recommended The Last Picture Show (1971) in Movies (curated)
![40x40](/uploads/profile_image/e4b/7afa98a6-58e1-4865-baf7-46eb38a89e4b.jpg?m=1614766479)
Andrew Solomon recommended Random Family in Books (curated)
![40x40](/static/img/default_user.jpg)
John Berendt recommended The Magic Christian in Books (curated)
![40x40](/uploads/profile_image/c74/d8277c53-81ff-4d2c-8007-2bac329f4c74.jpg?m=1553205006)
David McK (3227 KP) rated Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) in Movies
Apr 28, 2024
The most recent of the Mad Max movies (as of early 2024) and with Tom Hardy replacing Mel Gibson in the lead role, this is essentially one long car chase movie.
And the best, IMO, since 'The Road Warrior'.
This one also stars Charlize Theron as Imperator Furiosa - soon to have a spin-off movie of her own (albeit recast) - with a strong argument that this is really *her* movie instead of belonging to Max Rockatansky.
It helps, of course, that a lot of the (insane) stunts are real rather than SFX - for example, the polevaulters on top of cars? Real stuntmen.
And the best, IMO, since 'The Road Warrior'.
This one also stars Charlize Theron as Imperator Furiosa - soon to have a spin-off movie of her own (albeit recast) - with a strong argument that this is really *her* movie instead of belonging to Max Rockatansky.
It helps, of course, that a lot of the (insane) stunts are real rather than SFX - for example, the polevaulters on top of cars? Real stuntmen.