humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

> Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> > I notice on that page an antiStratfordian begins his rant with a
> > typical antiStrat exaggeration--that is to say, a lie:
>
> > "In April of last year, The New York Times conducted a survey of all
> > Shakespeare professors around the country and found that one out of
> > six said there is ample cause for doubt about William Shakespeare of
> > Stratford as the author of the plays and poems conventionally
> > attributed to him."
>
> > If anyone did a survey of "all Shakespeare professors around the
> > country," that is news to me. This is a typical antistrat statement.
.
> hj wrote:
>
> ==> There actually was such a survey, but it didn't find what was
> claimed.
>
> Last year the NYTimes surveyed "a random sample of colleges
> and universities in the United States that offer degree programs
> in English." It's at this site:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/education/edlife/22shakespeare-surv...
>
> Now -- the major results :
>
> * * * * *
> Do you think that there is good reason to question whether William
> Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and
> poems in the canon?
>
> Yes=6% , No=82%, Possibly=11%, I don't know=1%
>
> * * * * *
> Which of the following best describes your opinion
> of the Shakespeare authorship question?
>
> Has profound implications for the field=2%, An exciting opportunity
> for scholarship=3%, A theory without convincing evidence=61%,
> A waste of time and classroom distraction=32%, No opinion=2%
>
> * * * * *
>
> So: only 6% of all these people clearly think there's "good reason"
> to question Will's authorship. Only 5% think it rises to the level of
> being "exciting opportunity for scholarship."
>
> 93% call it *either* a waste of time and a distraction, or a theory
> without convincing evidence. I'd say that's pretty conclusive about
> where things stand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
39% DON'T consider it a waste of time or a distraction.
.
17% think that there is possibly good reason to question
. whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is
. the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon.
.
Those are pretty high numbers for what
Strats argue is a "crackpot" theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 17 percent solution Sunday, April 22, 2007
http://shakespearebyanothername.blogspot.com/2007/04/17-percent-solution.html
.
<relating the results of a survey they conducted on how the Shakespeare
authorship question is treated in colleges and universities around the
U.S. The Times's William S. Niederkorn begins by quoting the top
result from the poll: 82. That's the percent of Shakespeare professors
who say there's no good reason to question the tautology at the core
of Shakespeare studies: Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare.
.
Well, perhaps I'm just a half-glass-full sorta guy. (Waiter, more
vino, per favore!) But this scribbler does take some solace in the
fact that 17 percent of the 265 surveyed said that there was anywhere
from possibly to definitely good reason to question the conventional
belief that Will Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon was a poet or a
playwright. As it happens, 17 is also the percentage of professors who
had read "Shakespeare" By Another Name.
.
17 is a start. But, as all good scientific papers conclude: More work,
clearly, needs to be done.
---------------------------------------
jhm said... <J. Thomas Looney, and 26% read Charlton Ogburn, only 17% think that
there is 'possibly' a good reason to question orthodoxy. What about
that other 9-12 percent? I suggest that they must have read someone
else's take on these author's works?>>
---------------------------------------
TBrew said... <have been 'convinced' by SBAN of the de Vere theory. I don't expect
them to come out of the woodwork any time soon, though.>>
---------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer