Letter: The Bard must have had a head for business
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: David Lister rightly calls the BBC to task about its nervous reluctance concerning TV presentation of Shakespeare's plays ('Television lacks the right Will', 11 October). During the forthcoming Shakespeare season only one play will be performed, along with two feature films that include Olivier's Henry V (what, again?).
I question only one point made by Mr Lister: 'What did Shakespeare actually do for a living? Playwright? Correct.' During the Tudor and Jacobean periods a playwright was extremely well rewarded if he got pounds 8 for a play script, which then became the sole property of the acting company. No, Shakespeare made his money as a very canny businessman, an actor/sharer of the Lord Chamberlain's Men and, later, the King's Men.
Sadly, forsooth, poets are born, not paid.
Yours faithfully,
BARRY V. HAISMAN
Whitby, North Yorkshire
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments