Vanity generally does cause problems. Is a perfect beautiful copy any less than the original? Only vanity makes the original work more valuable, monetarily wise that is. I have beautiful first edition books and original art. Only for the money. I have copies that I enjoy for enjoyment.
Here’s a list of people who literally shat on Shakespeare for maybe not all diversity of work (although some clearly did have diversity of thought coming out their wing wangs) but for sheer numbers of published works:
Isaac Asimov 506
Kutekei Bakin born 1767: 470+ published works
Alexander Dumas: 1802: 277 published works
Charles Hamilton : 1876 : 1200+ published works
Nicolea Iorga: 1871: 1359+ published works
Rolf Kamuczak: 1934: 2900+ published works
Ursula Bloom: 1892: 500+ published works
Corin Tellado: 1946: 4000+ novellas but we wont hold that against him now will we?
Mohammed Shirazi: 1928: 1150+
Lope De Vega: 1562: ~2200 plays
Shakespeare: 1654: 37 plays:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prolific_writers
Why don’t you people who mock, chastise all creative people while you are at it, and be consistent in that jibe. Start on these authors, some of them wrote on so many themes that it would bewilder you to even imagine one person could learn so much. Mohammed Shirazi wrote for example about such subjects as jurisprudence and theology to politics, economics, law, sociology and human rights. A broad body of work I think you will agree? What is the problem here seriously, I don’t get it? Are you just really just incredulous of of a person who wrote a smaller number of things about a smaller number of subjects than thousands of other authors who did far more and in some cases in a shorter time period, well are you?
And what have we got to show for this this: a load of conjecture a load of what if DNA magically appeared on originals that don’t even exist, a load of well if this happened and magically we knew this then, frankly this thread is a bit of a joke, I haven’t seen anything more than conjecture, word play or any logical semblance of anything remotely approaching a solidly evidential or logical argument since it started. It’s not big and clever to mock at a person with nothing substantial to show for it.
I tell you what tomorrow tackle all of the great and fecund writers not just these few who exceeded Shakespeare, let’s tackle every single one of them born before the 19th century, and then use the fact that no reliable exact published data exists as a means to demean creativity to all the people who surpassed Shakespeare without breaking a sweat. Let’s do that, let’s demean the whole creative process. ;D
No I don’t care if he wrote them, but so far I have seen absolutely no reason at all even remotely to imagine he did not. Would I care if he did not, no, I really wouldn’t, but I would like to see something more than well what ifs and if we had, and what if the magic texts and so on. Stroll on I think. 
Vanity is another nail in the coffin of reason, I suspect many people here are too vain to imagine anything more than their own small conceits: I cannot imagine one man could write 37 plays, well 4000+ works is going to take some people some time to encompass, and well 2200 plays near 100 years before Shakespeare was born, well I think that’s going to at least make people think especially given the sheer breadth and diversity of that man’s works. One can but live in hope. They were special you are not, I am not, it happens, some people are just unimaginably creatively clever. Live with it. 
oh dude I am extremely special. But, if my gifts can benefit humanity, I would obscure my name happily.
There never was any real doubt about the provenance of Shakespeare’s work.
Objections only surfaced 100s of years after when people realised that he was a commoner.
They were all classist and malicious.
Because they were not written by Bacon, Marlowe, Cervantes or God. They were written by a commoner - Shakespeare.
There are no valid doubts. None.
I wrote them all last week in my lunch times, and sent them in a time-worm to Shakepeare with strict instructions to claim them as his own.
Asimov wrote lots. Much of which I read when I was a little boy. More is not better.
More turds is just more shit.
I would not trade 506 Asimov stories for one of WS’s sonnets.
There is a good reason no one ever heard of Lope De Vega, and WS is widely regarded as one of the greatest writers of all time.
A Play by Helofalotofshite.
Act 1
Black guy zips in on his parachute.
H&HW: Hi everyone. I’m the smartest guy on earth and I am going to dazzle you all with my wit.
Black guy clicks furiously on his gun. BLAM BLAM BLAM. (empties the clip)
H&HW: Impressed?
(GRINS). Exeunt stage top.
CROWD: EH? What was that?
Puzzled looks of incredulity.
ACT 2
There is no Act 2
END
Completed play 3424, of 4,000
Oh my God you really do have a bee in your bonnet, you are now attacking someone who is on your side.
Ah fer fucks sake get over it.
It’s called humour.
Make it clear then. There are emoticons, you’ve just spent the last 48 hours attacking every post I write on every thread with this stuff, I am supposed to suddenly get after days of abuse in pm and threads you are now joking after what you have now done? Really suddenly you are joking with this? Jesus H Corbett, I am not psychic.
Oh my god!!! Shakespeare jrs!! 
That makes no sense at all to me, but then neither does this thread, par for the course, I do hope the next hole is a par 3 with no bunkers and a nice receding green leading to a straight shot into something.
I personally think that a sand wedge over the moon into the special cow that farts magic will bank my next shot straight into reality. Probably not but one can but dream of moonbeams.
Nor me.
But as for not getting the thread - if you don’t understand it, then don’t contribute to it.
How many people do you know that actually, actually understand and get Shakespeare?
Funniest thing I have read in a long time, you are now basically attacking me for being on your side and trying to demean all my arguments because they agree with yours. Do it, go on keep doing it. It’s your funeral.
Everyone I know, well my friends at least. Ok some people I know have never seen it, probably wouldn’t watch it if I gave them money, nor would I chastise them for it. All I know is anyone I have ever met who actually watched it and took the time to get into his plays, got it. Is it really that hard to understand? I mean middle English? Well I guess it is, I don’t think it is, but clearly you do, which is fine it’s not like Americans speak English that well anyway. That was a joke ok, I was joking, it wasn’t serious. 
In original language, few would know even British citizens of modern times. The artistry is play on words, substituting words, and creating pallets of odd emotions. Shakespeare was slang , fantasy, debauchery, reverence and bloody truth. To compare the works to paintings. I propose abstract with purpose.
Well the only quote I understood was “to be or not to be that is the question” which means should we be true people or not? I am true but this world is full of fakes.