>>25212228
I believe in the community of writers theory.

Are the any other classic authors who were secretly women / black / multiple people or is it just William?

>>25212234
Homer and the gospels according to some.

>>25212234
There's Go Ask Alice, which was written by a femcel.

>>25212234
Copernicus was a woman

>>25212234
Ovid was a Greek

The Davidic portions of the bible, the Psalms, and Song of Solomon may have been written by a woman according to scholars.

>>25212250
>the Psalms, and Song of Solomon may have been written by a woman according to scholars.
Not any reputable ones

>>25212234
because shakespeare was putting on plays which made him more famous than the people who wrote the originals that he cut down into the bad versions that he actually produced. its like how lord of the rings is by peter jackson and fight club is by david fincher

>>25212228
george lucas didnt write star wars and empire strikes back. you can tell because he did write prequels

>>25212281
That isn't good enough evidence.

>>25212234
Homer obviously. The Homeric theories are in fact more entertaining than the anti-Stratfordian ones.
However the gold standard on this are undoubtedly the gospels which have seen a shitshow of """scholars""" attributing every separate verse to as many separate authors from periods from 300BC to 300AD and from all over the world and calling it science, so probably a few women, blacks, futanaris and Martians make it to the list.

>>25212228
I don't see any reason to doubt Shakespeare's authorship unless there is definitive proof otherwise.
The fags who point out things like "well, we don't know much about his life" or "well, these plays are stylistically different from these plays" aren't doing it in good faith, but instead to make room for them to insert their faggoty pre-supposed theories. It's a deliberate effort to try to make the evidence fit the conclusion, which is why anti-stratfordians have dozens of different possible candidates for who could have written Shakespeare's plays. They don't actually have any evidence pointing towards a credible alternative, all they know is it wasn't Shakespeare because, well, it just wasn't, okay? And it's no wonder this kind of thinking is attractive to the anons on /lit/ because it's filled with faggoty pseuds who want to feel like they're special and smart because they know something other people don't. You fags should stick to sucking cock, it's what you're good at, and leave the literary and historical analysis for people with three digit IQs.

All I know is if you somehow become semi-famous you need to directly and openly say you're a man, heterosexual, white, etc. etc. or whatever you are just in case someone 300 years later decides to make you a gay black woman. But the thing is we don't know what mentally ill people would be obsessing over in 2300, so there's that.

Current thought is that while Shakespeare was indeed the author of his works, he was also a great popularizer. He included much that was familiar to his audience and usually, but not always, gave it his own spin.

File: cantor.png (321.6 KB)

321.6 KB PNG

>alternate history investigators when they have to actually read a book instead of shitting out nonsensical speculation on twitter

>>25213851
Nice to see someone else bring those up! They are very classic examples of just that.

>>25213952
Shakes was definitely a little zesty