The anti-Stratfordians hold that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare's plays-it was another fellow of the same name, or of a different name. In this they invert the megalomaniacal equation and make themselves not the elect, but the superior of the elect. Barred from composing Shakespeare's plays by a regrettable temporal accident, they, in the fantasy of most every editor, accept the mantle of primum mobile, consign the {falsely named} creator to oblivion, and turn to the adulation of the crowd for their deed of discovery and insight-so much more thoughtful and intellectual than the necessarily sloppy work of the writer.
The anti-Stratfordians claim that William Shakespeare did not write the plays attributed to him, suggesting that someone else, either with the same name or a different one, was the true author. This perspective flips the narrative, positioning these skeptics as superior to Shakespeare, whom they deem an inferior figure while elevating their own intellectual pursuits. They perceive themselves as the true thinkers who unveil this supposed truth.
In their quest for recognition, these anti-Stratfordians feel like they have embraced the role of the Enlightened, believing that their revelations mark them as more insightful than the playwright himself. They reject Shakespeare's legacy as accidental or flawed, instead seeking accolades from the public for their supposed discoveries regarding the authorship of the plays. This view fosters a sense of superiority over a figure they believe has been mischaracterized by history.