Shakespeare and the Power of the Counter Narrative

Stephen Marche on the new film Anonymous:

“Anonymous” subscribes to the Oxfordian theory of authorship, the contention that Edward de Vere, the 17th earl of Oxford, wrote Shakespeare’s plays. Among Shakespeare scholars, the idea has roughly the same currency as the faked moon landing does among astronauts. . . .

(Which goes on my list of the best similes ever.)

I fear that the attraction of the Oxfordian theory, to people who don’t know any better, may be profound. Counternarratives have an inevitable appeal: wouldn’t it be cool if there were yetis? If the United States Army were keeping extraterrestrial remains in the Nevada desert? If aliens with powers beyond our imagination built the pyramids? If Shakespeare wasn’t Shakespeare but actually this, like, lord who had to keep his identity secret?

There is in our species a deeply suspicious strain. Some people, when they find that a theory is supported by the establishment, immediately look for alternatives: if THEY say it, it can't be true. Counter narratives have a magical appeal to their possessors, who feel that they know the secret to which the rest of us are oblivious. Through the possession of this knowledge they become members of an elite. They are revolutionaries of thought, seeing both farther and deeper than the rest of us. Sometimes they may ever be right. But as Marche points out, some counter narratives are just stupid:

The problem is that not everybody does deserve a say. Just because an opinion exists does not mean that the opinion is worthy of respect. Some people deserve to be marginalized and excluded. . . . Somebody here is a fraud, but it isn’t Shakespeare.