petermorwood:

alyssabethancourt:

blue-author:

deducecanoe:

jadelyn:

Are you fucking kidding me? Like, no, Shakespeare wouldn’t tweet a sonnet cause 140 characters is a bit short for that. Wrong medium. But you know what he would have? A very active twitter FULL OF DICK PUNS AND YOUR MOM JOKES okay. (And probably also a blog for the sonnets and longer works, that cross-posts links to twitter anyway.)

Get out of here with that pretentious anti-technology bullshit.

Shakespeare would have if he could have. He’d have tweeted that shit in fourteen glorious tweets a piece that looked like rants but if you scrolled down and read up, they were actually stupid-good poems. Swine.

Shakespeare never lived past the year 1616.

You know what, Shakespeare was basically an SNL writer. Some of his work was deeply philosophical, and some of it was dick jokes, and some of it was both things at the same time, but mostly it was mass-consumable. And mostly it was about getting paid. You know how you do that? By working your fanbase.

You’re damn right Shakespeare would have been on Twitter. Anyone who wants to talk about him like he was some kind of literary snob is just exposing their own pretentious ignorance.

Of course he never tweeted a sonnet. Cellphone coverage in Elizabethan London was even worse than modern County Wicklow during heavy rain.

But if he was alive now I think he’d be on Twitter all right, and on Tumblr, and have a website, and….

He’d be someone like Neil Gaiman or Mark Gaitiss or Stephen Fry, a writer of short stories, novels, TV and movie scripts and possibly an actor as well. He’d be in demand for shows like QI and Graham Norton, where he’d be witty, outrageous and quotable, and he’d also front pop-culture documentaries on media, history and language for BBC4.

Sound feasible?