Sir, - Referring to Shakespeare In Love (Bookworm, February 27th), John Boland seems dismayed by the fact that movies and - vulgarity with knobs on! - "glossly pics" sell books. "It used to be the other way round," he sighs.
Really? How many of Shakespeare's devoted groundlings could have "read the book" - or anything else?
Shakespeare, God bless 'im, was vulgar. He was attuned to fundamental human nature, which can be gross one minute and sublime the next. That's what fitted him to articulate the lust, pain, joy and divinity common to his fellow humans. (I think that being a genius helped also.)
There is nothing wrong with first admiring Shakespeare's poetry in spoken, even cinematic, form. And, as for those who are snagged firstly by the heart-stopping, drool-inducing beauty of Shakespeare In Love's two principals - well, there is nothing wrong with admiring God's poetry, either.
My only worry is: Are those pics glossy enough to be drool-proof? - Yours, etc., Patricia Johnson,
Winton Avenue, Rathgar, Dublin 6.