humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Apr 12, 6:21=A0pm, Greg Reynolds wrote:
> > Greg Reynolds wrote:
>
> > > Hand me an Oxfordian book or essay and i will scratch out every
> > > conditional phrase (the Oxfordian mainstays such as generally
> > > accepted, known to be, perhaps, leads to believe, could only mean, and=

> > > we may ascribe, although no evidence exists ... must have)
>
> > It's like waiting in a traditional Shakespeare bio
> > for the conditional phrase to work.
>
> I just came home from Second Hand Books. i was selling CDs and books
> and had time to wait while they appraised my stuff.
>
> So I went to the Shakespeare section and tried my experiment. In about
> 15 minutes I found it works not only on Oxfordian books, but also on
> Nevillian books!
>
> I pulled down Mark Anderson's book, very handsome and authoritative
> with excellent art and a healthy price tag of 16.98 USD in a second
> hand shop.
>
> And I opened to pages ending in 9, looking for the "conditional words"
> that are the essential structural support of Oxfordianism.
>
> Page =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "Fluff Words" needed to portray Oxford as Shakesp=
eare
>
> =A0 =A0 9 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"would have become"
> =A0 19 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"sensations that would have struck [Oxfo=
rd]"
> =A0 29 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"would have found"
> =A0 39 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"as far as can be determined
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "may well have"
> =A0 49 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"may very well have"
> =A0 59 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"may often have been"
> =A0 69 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"would have been"
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "probably"
> =A0 79 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"would" used five times in two paragraph=
s
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "would certainly have been noted"
> =A0 89 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"would have caught glimpses"
> =A0 99 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"would have passed"
>
> So, Mark Anderson's writing convinced me he would have less pages if
> he built on fact and not all these outside conditions that he speaks
> for with such authority.
>
> Then I opened "Truth Will Out" by James and Rubinstein. They stake
> their reputations on Henry Neville being the author of Shakespeare's
> poems and plays. Same technique though more extreme (probably because
> when two people work together they each hope the other one knows what
> they're talking about).
>
> i opened to pages ending in 5 and lightly scanned for the "conditional
> words" that are the only visible support for the theory. To wit:
>
> Page =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "Fluff Words" needed to portray Neville as Shakes=
peare
>
> =A0 =A0 5 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"would have received"
> =A0 15 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"does seem" =A0 "would have had"
> =A0 25 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"has also been speculated"
> =A0 35 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"is fair to say" =A0"perhaps"
> =A0 45 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0[sorry, can't make out my note]
> =A0 55 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0[sorry, can't make out my note]
> =A0 65 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"certainly suggest a link"
> =A0 75 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"it would of course be"
> =A0 85 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"presumably"
> =A0 95 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"there is general agrement"
> 105 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0the first two sentences contain "probably"
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 the third sentence contains "appar=
ently"
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 the fourth and fifth sentences con=
tain "probably"
> 115 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"it is at least plausible"
> 125 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"it is thus tempting to assume"
> 135 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"may well have been meant"
> 145 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"which would probably"
> 155 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"would clearly indicate"
> 165 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"if this can be said"
> 175 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"the inescapable message seems to be"
>
> That concluded my study because my offer was ready.
>
> So you see, it is generally agreed it would of course be presumably
> possible and may well have been the inescapable assumption ENOUGH
> ALREADY #&%@*!
>
> These authors insult those of us who are actually paying attention.
>
> Now for the Class project (and I would like Bob Grumman to help
> supervise this exercise as he is resident neologist and an educator).
>
> We are in need of the word that defines this type of detour/
> distraction employed by antiStratfordians to sidestep the area where
> other authors simply state the facts. I have called them conditional
> words, and fluff words. But certainly there is a more apt word that
> describes the words/phrases, the practice of lulling the reader into a
> feeling he is learning, and the whole letdown of reading endless
> factless books written to hurt Shakespeare.
>
> Submit your ideas here. If you were once Oxfordian just because of
> your lazy reading skills and now see that you were hoodwinked, your
> ideas are most welcome.
>
> Greg Reynolds

Not surprisingly, I jumped into this thread, panting, as soon as I saw
its title, Greg. No thoughts yet--except that the standard "woulda-
coulda" works pretty well. Still, one that specifies a technique of
anti-Stratfordians like my "looneation" and "Oxtraction" might be
nice. I'll sleep on it.

--Bob