humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Mar 2, 6:37=A0pm, "Peter Farey"
wrote:
> "spinoza1111" wrote:
>
> > Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > > "spinoza1111" wrote:
>
> > > I apologize if I am too offtopic in the two posts "Sonnets
> > > to Sundry Notes of Music" and "SSAT Analogies".
>
> > > That's ok. You did make a valiant attempt to make the second
> > > on-topic by relating it to what happens here. You said:
>
> > > Fuchs is a spokesperson for the self-indulgent who pretend,
> > > in this ng as elsewhere, that there really is no such
> > > thing as polysemy, and insist, when in positions of power,
> > > on applying a single set of rules while pretending there
> > > are no alternative sets.
>
> > > Unfortunately, you got it entirely the wrong way round,
> > > since the only contributors 'in a position of power' here
> > > are of course the Stratfordians. And, as I explained with
> > > the several examples I offered, it is the Stratfordians
> > > who apply "a single set of rules while pretending there
> > > are no alternative sets."
> > With all respect, the "Stratfordians" (where no professional
> > and full time Shakespeare scholar, to the best of my knowledge
> > and belief, is anything but a "Stratfordian") do address the
> > authorship identity question and have long resolved it.
>
> If you read what I said, you will find that I was referring only
> to the people posting here, among whom the Stratfordians
> are in a position of power for the very reason you have just
> given. It is the orthodox position.
>
> As to whether many Shakespeare scholars have really addressed
> the issue with sufficient rigour to have made a truly informed
> decision, I very much doubt it. Most of them simply follow the
> crowd, and have no interest in finding out more.
>
> For example, I was recently fortunate enough to be declared
> (by a well-known Shakespeare scholar) joint winner of a
> prestigious literary prize. My winning entry was an essay
> giving my main reasons for believing that Marlowe survived
> 1593 and went on to play the major part in writing the works
> attributed to Shakespeare. The award was announced in the
> Times, and the Marlowe Society publicly congratulated me at
> =
.
>
> Yet at the time of writing not one orthodox Shakespeare
> scholar has expressed the slightest interest in reading it.

Without taking sides prematurely (that is, while bracketing out
beliefs) this means that the set of "Shakespeare scholars" divides
into a "well-known" subset, an "orthodox" subset and everybody else.
One member of the former declared you da winnah.

The orthodox chaps won't read the prize-winning essay because in fact
journalists, loth to do due diligence, create fantasy scholarship
based on uncheckable, unverifiable and unfalsifiable conspiracy
theories which in being such, need overall less journalistic work in
fact - checking. The yellow press has always specialised in
sensational possibility because it's less work, with the most tragic
examples being the Spanish-American war (a fantasy created by William
Randolph Hearst to sell papers) and the invasion of Iraq.

The orthodox chaps won't read the prize-winning essay because there
has always been agreement on the facts of Shakespeare's life and there
has never been a Copernican revolution, since the Tudors required
death, birth and financial record keeping which show that Shakespeare
was an actor/manager in a theater that as a business proposition
wasn't about to be fed unactable closet dramas from some aristocratic
twit, or Marlowe as some sort of posthumous James Bond.

What part of "get me rewrite" don't you understand?