humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Mar 31, 7:21=A0am, Tom Reedy wrote:
> On Mar 31, 4:09 am, Ignoto wrote:
>
> > Tom Reedy wrote:
> > > A poster on another board has said he thinks the upcoming decade will
> > > see more establishment Shakespearean academics join into the
> > > authorship debate and that they will eventually win it. I know last
> > > year James Shapiro announced he was writing a book on it, but I
> > > haven't heard of any others.
>
> > > Does anybody think the same, and if so, how do you think the
> > > antiStrats will fare and why?
>
> > Are geologists planning on debating the flat earthers? Astronomers the
> > geocentrists?
>
> None of these groups have students coming into college asking about
> their validity.
>
> > If they did, what could they possible hope to gain?
>
> Umm, dissemination of the truth? Last I recall, college was supposed
> to have some hand in that.
>
> > Rarely
> > does the rational trump the irrational (and these boards would seem the
> > living proof).
>
> That is true, but ignoring the irrational while it makes headway
> against the rational because of no response from academe is
> irrational.
>
> > If academics did weigh in on the 'debate' it would, I imagine, mainly be=

> > to protect 'hearts and minds' against the marketing onslaught of
> > Oxfordianism. I doubt any would do it out of 'interest'- what is
> > interesting about a cult that mistakes literary criticism for history?
> > (Ok, perhaps studying the cult might be interesting, but engaging them
> > in 'rational' debate? nada...)
>
> Yes, it's hard to engage them in rational debate, because for the most
> part their ideas of evidence is irrational and they continue to bring
> up the same points long after they've been refuted (among other
> things). But as you wrote, education of the students would be the main
> reason, and I think the phenomenon is interesting in itself (I've been
> saying that for 10 years, and I still find it interesting).
>
> TR

I'm with Tom on this--obviously, as I've been "debating" anti-
Stratfordians for over twenty years now. I'm with the other Tom in
not seeing why professors should join in--although the idea that any
of them are the equivalent of Clemens is laughable--except that they
would reach a lot more readers, and convince a lot more halfwits who
go by credentials rather than intelligence in evaluating arguments.

The two chief reasons to debate anti-Stratfordians seem to me: (1) the
same reason some "real" scientists debate creationism, and (2) to
refine one's own understanding, which must happen if one is constantly
called upon to defend it, and defend it against absurdity, which is
very hard to do but valuable if done. A third good reason is to get
an improved understadning of and practice against fallacious
reasoning, for that doesn't occur only outside Proper Science or
Literary History.

--Bob G.