Speaking of understanding old texts on a deeper level, I am finding that reading "the bad plays" "Baconically" instead of in the Stratfordian vacuum does, actually, lead to them having meaning which is far clearer. And I'm just at the very beginning of that process. I will write about applying that to one of the plays later.
If the works would play better that way, I'm not an actor, I don't know. In following up on this hobby and diversion, I was interested to hear what the fine actor, Mark Rylance, former artistic director of Shakespeare's Globe, had to say about finding a deeper meaning in the plays by studying Bacon.
And that led me back to the actor and scholar of the issue and the theater, Kier Cutler, has said about more recent developments in the issue. Long time readers of my blog will note what he says about the entirely fictitious fervently believed in "bio pic" and historical abomination, "Shakespeare in Love" as tacitly endorsed by the Stratfordian establishment.
I will confess that when I started on this it was just because, reviewing the rotted gauze out of which the "Shakespeare" idol has been constructed, I was amused and fascinated by how the required, mandated belief in it, clearly motivated by the local industry of Shakespeare, inc. in Britain, a lucrative line of nonsense, was so firmly established in official academia and official culture. Going into it deeper shows that there is a lot more to it than that.
If the idiots who troll me hadn't let me know how enraged they are by the issue, I'd probably never have written about it more than once.