Why are people so obsessed with saying this guy is Shakespeare?

Why are people so obsessed with saying this guy is Shakespeare?
Does it prove a wider point or is it a point of obsessive autism?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it's just schizos with pareidolia

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://graymirror.substack.com/p/the-return-of-the-earl

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is one of the few gems on Yarvin's new blog, everything else is (at this point) trite shit.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Idk, the recent one about the bareback election was a banger. But he does keep saying the same thing. "A Conversation About Monarchy" is a nicely condensed Open Letter or Gentle Introduction. He seems to have arrived at his worldview in a burst of creativity in the GWB years after reading Hoppe's Democracy: the God that Failed.

        Not that that's a criticism. He's right. The one book he keeps writing is totally brilliant and original.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/t1npcip.jpeg

      Why are people so obsessed with saying this guy is Shakespeare?
      Does it prove a wider point or is it a point of obsessive autism?

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's because they don't enjoy art for its own sake; they only enjoy it as a symbol of elite culture. Therefore they can't bear the fact the plays were written by a merchant's son living in London, and replace him with a mysterious courtier. They can't conceive that a person like Shakespeare wrote the plays because they don't have any aesthetic sense themselves. Artistic development and liberal education are, for them, simply a status ritual, and so it doesn't matter how many Italian novels Shakespeare read if he didn't have private tutoring in Ancient Greek. That's also why the people most obsessed with these conspiracies are never the people who have interesting things to say about the actual content of the plays. All that matters to them is that it's work of an elite genius, and by figuring out his (spurious) clues, they too get to be part of the elite, looking down on the ignorant rabble.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Based. This is basically Chesterton's argument.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Pretty much the opposite is true. It's because we enjoy art for its own sake that we accept the fact that it is an elite phenomenon. Whereas the myth of the country genius tells the democratic mob that anyone can have genius inside him, he need only let it out! It's a short way from Stratfordianism to rap.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        More of a short way from saying art for its own sake to saying it‘s degraded (by weirdly conflating Stratfordianism to Shakespeare itself) if the maker wasn‘t elite.

        israeli level of doublespeak.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >we enjoy art for its own sake that we accept the fact that it is an elite phenomenon
        lol

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Oxfordianism is lazier, it tells the genetic elitist that they need only be born into an aristocratic family for their own talent and genius to be assured. Art is partially an elite phenomenon but it's an elitism of creativity which everyone knows to be an unpredictable phenomenon. Of course there is a genetic component to intelligence, but the genetic component to creative genius is not yet understood. Shakespeare was also not considered "high culture" during his time, he was popular culture like Dickens' novels, so the elitism that we apply retrospectively to enjoying him doesn't have foundation in the authorial perspective. Shakespeare, unlike Jonson, was not himself an elitist and from what appears in his writing had rather more humble assessments of his own art, and this is probably part of why he is far more enjoyed.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Shakespeare, unlike Jonson, was not himself an elitist
          lmao read Coriolanus, I'm begging you

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You read it, properly without preconceptions. Coriolanus is a dissection of the problem with elitism, it is a tragedy after all. I agree, of course, that there are elements of Shakespeare as an artist identifying with Coriolanus, but if Shakespeare wholly identified with him then he would not have been a playwright. If Coriolanus is talking to the audience with: "You common cry of curs! whose breath I hate/ As reek o' the rotten fens" (like the metatheatrical reference of "foul and pestilent congregation of vapours" in Hamlet) and really is telling them "I banish you" with Coriolanus, then the audience is banished, and furthermore there is no play. That is not who Shakespeare he was, he was a playwright not an elitist poet, he caters both to the nobles and to the groundlings, and above all to human nature.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >clicking "Post" for this

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm saying there's something to your argument, in that Coriolanus does as a play show elitist tendencies, but that the essence of playwriting during the Elizabethan period prevents it. Jonson preferred written editions ultimately because he was a kind of elitist and sometimes an indifferent playwright, but Shakespeare never even thought about printed versions. His heart was on the stage, first as an actor, then as a playwright. But Oxfordians don't understand plays, they only understand cryptograms. Don't come onto this website if you can't engage in proper literary discussion.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Drama in the Renaissance was entirely a court thing. It wasn't bottom-up like hip-hop. The public theaters were the nobles descending to the commoners, mostly through intermediaries to save face.

            Also of course he cared about written work, some of his stuff isn't even drama.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I get the counter-claim that Shakespeare was entirely "lowbrow" is of course annoying. But . The Globe theatre was a business foremost, Shakespeare was writing, like a lot of great artists and all the other playwrights at the time, for money. It wasn't elitist out of practical necessity. There were nobles there at performances but you can't make money solely catering to them. Being summoned a few times a year to perform at court does not make it "entirely a court thing" when there are lots of performances to Londoners all year round. He did publish poems of course, but not many. It was likely that he secretly held Venus and Adonis and Rape of Lucrece in high esteem, but his dedications are still very hesitant and only in part mock-humility: he calls his lines "unpolished" for Venus and Adonis and "untutored" for Rape of Lucrece. The sonnets are also where we see Shakespeare certainly writing for posterity and their artistry is far too great to admit otherwise, although ironically the value of the sonnet form is very scornfully treated in his plays.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I always thought that Shakespeare still lived in a time when non-ancient tragic theater was seen as pure degeneracy and it was the works of the tragedians that changed this after they were all dead

            >Why are people so obsessed with the truth
            Holy gay king

            The point seems uninteresting apart from being motivated though
            It's like saying that the Torah was not written by Moses but by another man called Moses
            What is the point of this apart from an ulterior motive?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Of course there is a genetic component to intelligence, but the genetic component to creative genius is not yet understood
          Creative genius is just what you call the high iq people who chose to dabble in the creative arts. Wittgenstein had siblings like this who pursued music. Da Vinci was like this, Michelangelo, mozart, bach, beethoven, etc. Its not some outer plane level of intelligence separate from what people like newton and gauss had. In fact one of the qualities people with 145+ iqs have, listed in the iq chart btw, is the ability to excel in both arts and sciences. You clearly have never met these kinds of people.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The current research on this is that IQ and creativity relationship plateaus and is not well understood after 120 IQ. I agree all the people you mentioned likely had very high IQs and one would think probably far beyond 120, but no-one knows what exactly causes creativity after this level. And most of the people you mentioned were not born to aristocratic families but middle class or wealthy nouveau riche families. Da Vinci for example was the illegitimate son of a landlord and a peasant girl, further showing the genetic component to intelligence and creative achievement is not predictable.
            >"listed in the iq chart btw"
            Which IQ classifciation? I agree, having a high IQ is more likely to lead to creative potential, but there's no way of predicting beyond a certain level by IQ alone whether someone will be more creative or not.
            >You clearly have never met these kinds of people.
            Neither have (You) because creative geniuses are very rare.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            midwit cope

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's really not, it's a matter of recognising that there is obviously more to creativity, that we probably don't yet fully understand, than IQ, which is obvious to people who are observing how creative achievement is distributed in reality. It's a respect for the mystery of the creative process which is obviously not wholly reducible to rankings through standardised tests -- because of course it's not by definition, creativity is the thing that eludes being compared because it's so new.

            https://i.imgur.com/56ayrMh.gif

            [...]

            The dedications to Venus and Adonis/Rape of Lucrece make no sense if Shakespeare was Oxford. And the sonnets were more likely addressed to William Herbert and not Southampton.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            only three men have ever had Shakespeare works dedicated to them

            guess what they had in common

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because that's how patronage works.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A funny thing many people overlook in the introductory pages to the Sonnets, the first folio, and many of the quartos is, a fact often supressed by so called academics, that when you examine them closely, they name the author as William Shakespeare

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >after 120 IQ.
            This is a Malcolm Gladwell meme

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You never understood my point. High iq people already have creative potential and its only recognized if they choose to produce something, that is usually a function of motivation and perhaps upbringing. There is no mystery here other than that which you choose to impose upon yourself.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So every high IQ individual is capable of creative achievement in your view -- that is the true democratisation of creativity. Art would really be worthless if that were the case. If you met high IQ individuals you would know most still aren't creative. Most high IQ individuals are convergent thinkers, divergence in thinking and unconventionality AND very high IQ is rare. The refusal to accept that there are mysteries and that creative potential is "nothing but" a ranking on a standardised test is monstrous incuriosity.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's only because you think they are many. 145+ iq people represent 0.01% of the population. And high iq thinking at that level constitutes both divergent and convergent thinking, they can do both at the same time, that is what iq tests like the WAIS IV test for.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's political for you, freaks? I thought we were just autists obsessed with the truth.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Here comes the Nietzschean that sees everybody else through the lens of cope, but certainly not this disgusting proclivity as a form of cope itself.

      >inb4, it's coincidences schizo !

      Give us the damn algorithm to generate these conspiracy theories. I'm not denying it's not coincidences (in fact I'm leaning towards this hypothesis), however you have to provide us with the heckerino algorithmino and compare its efficiency with the underlying human crowd algortihm.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/05/the-pyramid-and-the-garden/

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Does it prove a wider point or is it a point of obsessive autism?

    Historical truths matter to more than just autists anon.

    For me personally, I was persuaded by Alexander Waugh's youtube lectures (he's the grandson of Evelyn Waugh). He presents compelling evidence that Shakesy is De Vere, or at the very least, NOT William of Stratford.

    Meanwhile, the Stratfordians look exhausted and pathetic with their argumentation. The gloomy academics are left to carry the psy-op on after hundreds of years, but they went from merry pranksters to washed-out losers trying to hold their jobs on a gloomy isle, long after the empire's heyday.

    So there's a bit of emotion involved here.

    Anyway, see for yourself. Read about it, watch those Waugh vids, and then let somebody try to say Shakespeare was just a commoner, born to illiterate parents, who declined to teach his kids how to read. Seems moronic to believe that if you ask me.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If he was a prodigy, reading would not have been a difficult skill to learn and not just english, but any language. I mean leibniz was fluent in latin at 12, among other languages, because he had a huge family library. A curious boy could sneak to church befriend a priest or a boy waiting to be a monk and have them teach him the basics. Its funny you morons find this so unimaginative when its the least surprising thing geniuses do at his age.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If he could wiggle himself around enough to write Romeo and Juliet, why wouldn't he be able to wiggle further and write a bunch of histories?

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Shaksper couldn't write his fricking name. His parents and children were illiterate. Get a grip.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Given his social status, Shakespeare was not literate. And wouldn't have the knowledge of nobility to write some of his plays.
    But obviously you can't say one person wrote all the plays. You can't seriously say the author of Midsummer's Night is the same author of Hamlet. Different words are used and the emotional styles are very different.
    There were actually 3 Shakespearean communities. One wrote comedies, one wrote dramas and the other wrote the historical plays. Those communities wrote a century after "Shakespeare" died.

    t. Atheist Critical Biblical Scholar

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >communities
      lol yeah cuz that's where great art comes from, committees
      >a great playright can't in2 genres
      lmao come on dude

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Neither did other playwrights.

        I think those posts were meant to be satirical but I was taken in by Poe's law as well.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Given his social status, Shakespeare was not literate.
      This has been debunked.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Another thing to mention is that Shakespeare didn't name himself in the body of the texts.
      Such as,
      >I, William Shakespeare, will now tell the tale of a Danish Prince

      Showing that authorship was actually anonymous, according to the technics of Academic Critical Biblical Criticism.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Neither did other playwrights.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Another thing to mention is that Shakespeare didn't name himself in the body of the texts.

        Yes, I'm sure Ed Vere wrote sonnet 135, with its many self-referential "Will" puns -- which are of course found throughout the Shakespeare corpus.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You don't go far enough broseph
      I am convinced that Hamlet as we have it was the product of gradual redaction by a break-off community from the tragedy community that was undergoing a traumatic experience because they perceived the leaders of the tragedy community
      This is shown by the clear interpolation of Hamlet being inactive.
      This inactivity is meant to existentially challenge the viewer into activity and authenticity in their own lives

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You're doing too much.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Didn't Ur-Hamlet have a very different ending at first and the modern ending was added decades later?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's a point of frankly pathetic elitist autism.It would be generous to call these theories schizophrenic because schizophrenic delusions are usually based in the recognisation of a real connection that is dangerously overexaggerated. This is more akin to when people scrape the bottom of the barrel to find any possible gossip about someone they dislike in their social circle, or the various fake conspiracy theories intentionally propagated by the powers that be because it distracts self important narcissists from the real things going on which are less extreme but more dangerous.
      The "shakespeare was illiterate" "argument" is especially embarassing because it betrays how absolutely shit their knowledge of elizabethan (and english social) history is, complete ignorance of grammar schools.
      >inb4 his children were illiterate
      his only legitimate son died at age 11 and how would he have produced any significant writing? his other legitimate children were daughters, who would not have been going to grammar school.

      You're proving the point of

      It's because they don't enjoy art for its own sake; they only enjoy it as a symbol of elite culture. Therefore they can't bear the fact the plays were written by a merchant's son living in London, and replace him with a mysterious courtier. They can't conceive that a person like Shakespeare wrote the plays because they don't have any aesthetic sense themselves. Artistic development and liberal education are, for them, simply a status ritual, and so it doesn't matter how many Italian novels Shakespeare read if he didn't have private tutoring in Ancient Greek. That's also why the people most obsessed with these conspiracies are never the people who have interesting things to say about the actual content of the plays. All that matters to them is that it's work of an elite genius, and by figuring out his (spurious) clues, they too get to be part of the elite, looking down on the ignorant rabble.

      , outing yourself as incapable of appreciating deep creativity and art except as an aesthetic affectation

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You are so moronic. You think you need grammar school when your father is the greatest writer in history? Get a grip.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why would a supposedly literate man need other people to sign his own names on legal documents?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >other people
          might be other people, but it looks so much sloppier than the clerks' writing and that S is usually the same. I think he was just barely a tiny bit literate and didn't give a frick how his name was spelled so he scribble it a few times. but no, he didn't scrawl out Hamlet lmao

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why are people so obsessed with the truth
    Holy gay king

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I like Oxfordians because it's an easy way to know whether I am speaking to a moron.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think it's just a fun pastime, honestly. The obsessive videos focused on decoding hidden messages are really fun to watch at times, and they've inspired me to hide messages within my published works, too. The Shakespeare authorship question is like English lit's 9/11. "Hamlet" was an inside job.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Europeans mistake their own ignorance of 16th and 17th century England for evidence that the Englishmen of the period were like Africans today, whereas in reality the average man was wealthier, healthier and enjoyed more liberties than his counterparts in France, Germany, etc. That a greater proportion of Englishmen were literate - albeit still a very small proportion of the total number of inhabitants - thus comes as a great surprise to them

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i personally want to believe that de vere is shakespeare because he and i attended the same cambridge college !

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I personally want to believe that Stratford wrote Bacon's essays because it would be funny

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No one has a single letter from the Stratford man. At the time of his death he owned no books, despite being wealthy. No desk. Nothing in his will (written by a clerk) suggests literacy.

    It's RIDICULOUS.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      All deboonked:
      >wills at the time didn't usually specify books
      >not that many letters from other playwrights survive

      Why would a supposedly literate man need other people to sign his own names on legal documents?

      >signatures match Hand D
      >printing errors from Folio of plays copied from Shakespeare's foul papers match distinctive features of Hand D
      https://oxfraud.com/HND-spellbound

      >other people
      might be other people, but it looks so much sloppier than the clerks' writing and that S is usually the same. I think he was just barely a tiny bit literate and didn't give a frick how his name was spelled so he scribble it a few times. but no, he didn't scrawl out Hamlet lmao

      Geniuses, stereotypically, don't tend to have very neat handwriting

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Oxfraud
        okay that site looks interesting but a couple red flags. they're awfully vehement and the Marxism is right out on their sleeve. not confident that this is the side that _isn't_ ideologically driven nuts. but will check it out

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I think it's a good website, but I agree the tone and vehemence isn't great for supposedly upholding the side of common sense and rationality. The problem is that to investigate these details at this level without academic incentive requires you to be a bit autistic/crazy (which most people in academia seem to be anyway) and especially to be interested in rebutting this question so thoroughly rather than simply ignoring it means that whoever does this website is clearly just as nuts as the Oxfordians, although they're much closer to the side of reality. The Oxfordian side more often have the hallmarks of paranoid schizophrenic thinking (implausibly large conspiracies, hidden messages and codes, delusions of grandeur, typical paranoid topics like hermeticism and Masonry). Not saying they're all schizos of course but nevertheless Oxfordianism is a conspiracy theory, and even though Waugh sounds lucid and at times ingenious with whay he's able to find, the fact-twisting to fit the theory is not sane and ultimately typical of conspiracy theorists who are more invested in their theory than the truth. The psychology of conspiracy theorists is often out of a need to feel special and unique in a world that feels simply indifferent to them -- they're one of the few who see how everything is a lie, who see deeper into things than everyone else, or in this case who know who Shakespeare really was -- to bring this back to the OP question. It's a conspiracy because it answers a psychological need born out of Shakespeare's idolisation in our culture. We have such a strong Oxfordian contingent on IQfy usually because this website attracts just the type of weird, misanthropic antisocial loners for whom conspiracy theories are a great way of creating a sense of being special or maintaining a superiority complex. Just look at the number of conspiracies on /misc/. It's just sad, lonely people really, but again I'm not disclaiming such tendencies wholly in the vehement Stratfordians/anti-Oxfordians or myself either.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >weird, misanthropic antisocial loners for whom conspiracy theories are a great way of creating a sense of being special or maintaining a superiority complex
            just like me fr

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            As you point out, I'd say this swings both ways
            The anti-oxfordians like oxfraud or really a lot of people dedicated to being anti-conspiracy work on a similar psychological drive
            You feel like you are defending the world from the forces of darkness that seek to sink it in insanity by refuting what are really harmless, if very goofy, beliefs

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You feel like you are defending the world from the forces of darkness that seek to sink it in insanity by refuting what are really harmless, if very goofy, beliefs

            As always, they point at the dangers in society because they feel threatened by the dangers they face individually on the small argumentative bubble they fight in. Appealing to scapegoating-inclined crowds like that is the hallmark of the cowards. Better just call them all pedosatanists at this point, that would be the just retribution they deserve (an eye for an eye).

            By the way they totally fail to identify goofy conspiracy theories (not talking about the serious, politically-driven and well documented ones) proceed by mechanism relying on (secret) harmonies, not unlike poetry.

            See Saussure's investigation about hypograms (words under words):
            https://journals.openedition.org/linx/671

            See for instance this case where Saussure uncovered an "anagrammatically encoded" oracle within an actual delphic oracle:

            >To find linguistic elements belonging to other grammatical classes, one must turn to less frequent cases: cases where the "cryptogram" - that's the name given to it in this case - takes the form of what I call a micronarrative. The most spectacular case is that of the "vaticinium" reported by Livy, which has already been studied from another point of view in part 3. This "vaticinium" spans eleven Saturnian verses, as we have seen before, and therefore quite long: from about twelve to fifteen syllables. This set of verses, totaling about a hundred syllables, contains as a cryptogram a narrative > obviously much briefer than Saussure restores as follows:

            >Ave Camille Ave Marce Fouri Emperator Dictator ex Veieis Triump(h)abis. Oracolom Putias Delp(h)icas (Starobinski, p. 78)

            >I translate this archaic Latin, both phonetically and morphologically:

            >"Greetings, Camillus, greetings, Marcus Furius, commander-in-chief. As dictator following your victory at Veii, you will triumph. Such is the oracle of the Pythia of Delphi."

            https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/05/the-pyramid-and-the-garden/

            >But there’s a way around this objection: the 1600s French people defined their meter as 1/10,000,000th the distance between the Equator and the North Pole. If the aliens also thought that was an interesting way to measure length, then they could have encoded their secret wisdom in it.

            In fact I have attempted to write an algorithm to do just that. It's goal ? given a planet (the dimensions), the number of finger the aliens that populate it have (the base/radix of their numerical system), find a unit of measurement that can be used to measure both the planet and its inhabitant and which yields "round" numbers (or something simple from the perspective of kolmogorov's algorithmic complexity). There is nothing far-fetched in that, and the metric system has a natural origin according to this perspective.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Speed of light in the great pyramid:
            - its latitude
            - difference between the circumferences of the circle circumscribing its base and the circle inscribing it.
            - π*(d - b) where d is the length of the diagonal of the base of the pyramid and b is the length of its side.
            - picrel: https://sekeldaja.blogspot.com/2013/01/about-speed-of-light-encoded-in-great.html

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Also I have developed an extension to the anthropic principle. If we consider the anthropic principle as a collection of favorable coincidences for life, and we assume that these coincidences result from a random sampling process, then given that we do indeed exist as intelligent observers, it is more likely that we have drawn supernumerary, non-functional, and irrelevant coincidences for the appearance of life, rather than having drawn just the strict set of coincidences necessary for life.

            See here for development of this idea: https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/426765489/

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because everything has a pedigree and provenance. Nothing is just magically born from the ether.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >describing one of the most fertile literary scenes to ever exist as 'the ether'

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >b-b-b-but muh acausality. something something godels incompleteness theorem. heisenberg uncertainty principle.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >THINK OF IT..
    >The most famous writer in history never wrote a letter to anyone.

    Excellent schizoism by the way
    https://tobeornottobe.org/

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >https://tobeornottobe.org/
      Life would be so much more boring if schizos didn't exist. God bless 'em

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *