humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Mar 25, 2:25=A0pm, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" but.net> wrote:
> One huge difference between Freud and Looney is that Freud was
> inventing answers to questions not effectively answered whereas Looney
> was inventing answers to a question long effectively enough answered
> to satisfy everyone in the field that further answers were
> unnecessary. =A0Same difference exists between Wegener and Looney--but
> another exists there, too--that Wegener was vindicated. =A0Frued,
> interestingly, was accepted very quickly, but never vindicated.
>
> --Bob G.

I agree with the first part, although it took eighty
years to see that Freud's answers had no relationship
to medical science but as to the second part, the
Strat proof has many parts, there is criticism on
Shacksper's biography, there is an entirely separate
criticism on the Works, one which doesn't take any
part of the biography into consideration. It deals
with the works as if they were written anonymously.

The biographical criticism has ranged from skeptical
(I'm speaking of Strat critics like Halliwell-Phillipps
and Richard Grant White, even the great Lee is skeptical
at times, he refused to participate in a coverup of
the Green diary) to 'converts' like Greenblatt who are
criticized by more skeptical critics like Bloom.

I honest to god fell off my chair laughing at Bloom's
critique of Greenblatt's devotion to Freudianism. It is
hysterical. Two brilliant critics, Bloom the comedian.
I'm laughin' again just thinkin' of it.

Thanks for the post and . . . do you have an opionion
as to whether (is that grammatical?) the Strats should
put up a website that would respond to newbies questions
about Oxford's authorship evidence?