Friday, October 28, 2005

Famous portrait 'not Shakespeare'

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Arts | Famous portrait 'not Shakespeare'
This is hardly a shock. Actually, if you google for the Grafton portrait, the first hit is the Norton site claiming it's Marlowe. This is another example of the way that Shakespeare gets romanticised. We seem to want to possess him, and an authentic portrait (and a diary, letters, laundry lists etc) would help. But it isn't going to happen. Why anyone would think this had to be Shakespeare is beyond me. The attribution is based on the flimsiest evidence - the sitter is the same age Shakespeare would have been,, that's it.
Having said that, the reasons advanced as to why it can't be WS are just as pathetic. The expert says "it is very unlikely that in 1588, Shakespeare would have been able to afford a costume of this type." OK, I'm sure that's true - but wouldn't people have dressed up for a portrait? Or couldn't the painter have imagined some clothes? And if WS was so poor, how come anyone thought he'd be able to afford his portrait in the first place?
I wish we could accept that we will never know that much about Shakespeare. We seem to be able to accept this lack of knowledge with other great literary figures (Homer, Chaucer for instance) so why not WS?

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Keep on Blogging...

...because it's changing the world aparently, according to this article on the new Flock browser. I just liked the picture.

Word verification on

I've reluctantly turned this on, as I keep getting comment spam from brainless morons in Coleslaw Arizona...

Monday, October 24, 2005

Malayan pantoums

Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Stephen Fry's Malayan pantoums
I agree with McMillan about Fry - he does seem, damn him, the complete renaissance man. McMillan is a lively and interesting poet, who has written much whimsical and humorous stuff, but who has a serious side too. I like "The Er Barnsley Seascapes" for their surreal quality. He has an excellent show on Radio 3, too, which I imagine no-one listens to as it's broadcast, because it goes out on a Saturday night. Another reason to thank the BBC Listen Again thingy. Anyway, now you know what a pantoum is, don't you?

The last Leeds post

Leeds, Live it, Love it > Visitors > Home
Here's the website displaying that logo. Now, call me a cynic if you like Duncan, but that copyright sign is next to the word Leeds, so it does look like you've attempted to copyright the word. Amazon have trade marked "And you're done" I notice, and lots of other familiar phrases now have the TM symbol after them, and yet Dunc (as I like to think of him) says that no everyday word can be copyrighted. I'm sure he's right, so why do the powers that be allow the trademarking of common phrases?

Almost the last Leeds post...

So here's the logo that doesn't copyright the word Leeds. It sure looks like it does though, doesn't it?