humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

wrote in message
news:45e9a844-4fe0-457d-8ecb-9f052f2f9498@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

>>>> The case I put forward is no different.
>>>> I say that, for example, Sonnet 18 is
>>>> about Queen Elizabeth, Mary QS, the
>>>> murder of Riccio, and so on. Why
>>>> can't you evaluate that claim in an
>>>> objective manner? You would list all
>>>> the pros and all the cons, and come
>>>> to a conclusion. Are you not capable
>>>> of that?
>>
>>> No, Paul, but if--after looking at his theory and deciding I disagreed
>>> with it,
>>
>> My point is that you skip this stage with
>> me. You have never provided the slightest
>> evidence that you have seriously looked at
>> any of my work.
>
> So you say, moron. But I say I did. Now, how do we decide who is
> right?

In this case we have the archives. IF you
had ever done a serious criticism of my
work (say) on Sonnet 18, you could locate
it and re-post. But, of course, you can't --
because you never have. Nor have you
done a serious criticism of ANY other part
of my work. (You may regard your name-
calling as 'serious criticism' -- but even
you will have the sense not to re-post it.)

>> You would not feel the need
>> to read it to know your 'point'.
>
> That's because I've already posted enough on your insane
> interpretations only to be told I've presented no evidence and no
> arguments.

Name-calling is not an argument.

[..]
>> You have no basis whatever for this
>> 'argument'. You would need to have
>> taken a few of my exegeses and applied
>> it to each paragraph and sentence of
>> them. You have never made the slightest
>> effort in this regard.
>
> Yeah, yeah. The problem with that is that I have a different method
> of interpreting poetry than you do

Yep -- you don't read the words.
HOWEVER -- you have to take your
opponent's arguments in the way they
are intended. You can't ignore them
by saying you do a different thing.
What you do has no relevance.

There is, of course, nothing new in this.
You cannot bear to contemplate a defeat
of your stance, so you adopt all manner
of devices. Those who oppose Evolution,
want to see a statement of God about it
in the Bible. They don't do science; they
read the Bible. To them, that's the only
evidence that can count. You are no
different -- except that you are much
more confused.

> --the method used by those who
> publish interpretations of poetry, not the method you use, which is to
> make up a life for Oxford, and match it to a made up wishlexical
> reading of the Sonnets that ignores what poets do, treating them like
> some kind of bizarre combination of gossip and politicking--or
> whatever you think they are.

So what? It either works or it doesn't.
Merely claiming -- that it's not what you
like to do -- is not an argument.

>>> How do we determine who is more likely right--especially about
>>> a question of poetry explication, which is relatively a subjective
>>> undertaking?
>>
>> It is NOT a relatively subjective matter.
>> Either the words of Sonnet 18 (for example)
>> apply to Elizabeth, Mary QS, Darnley,
>> Riccio, etc., or they don't. You are obliged
>> (under you ideology) to assert that they
>> don't. You should therefore be able to point
>> out that either (A) there is no correspondence
>> between the words of the Sonnet and the
>> historical circumstances (as would be seen
>> by our poet in London a few weeks after the
>> events) OR
>> (B) show how any apparent correspondence
>> is purely the result of chance.
>
> Easy job, Paul.

Except that you never make a start on it.

> But that's not how you interpret poems.

So you legislate. A highly impressive
'argument'.

> You consider
> what aesthetic reasons there are for various words. You ignore
> possible connections to real world people unless they are explicity
> there. If the poem works as a poem without external references, you
> assume you have it right enough.
>
> As for your correspondences, who is to judge whether they are there or
> not?

You could attempt to demolish them.
But you don't -- because you know
that you will fail -- and your failure
will be very obvious, even to you.

> You say they are, I say almost none are (one or two may be
> there).

So attempt to demolish my arguments.
You never try, for very obvious reasons.

[..]
>> According to your ideology, the words of
>> Sonnet 18 no more relate to Scotland or to
>> 1566 than they do to the Sinking of the Titanic,
>> or the Siege of the Alamo. So it should be
>> child's play for you to demonstrate that.
>
> How, if you grab any possible reference in it to Scotland?

If it has NO connection, that will be
very obvious. Can you relate Sonnet
18 to the Sinking of the Titanic?

> All I can
> do is show that it is a standard love poem much like many such poems
> by others,

I agree. That's ALL you can do. You
simply cannot cope with my argument.
I'm half-surprised you don't seek
confirmation from the Bible.

[..]
> Now, if you had external evidence, like a private letter of Oxford's
> in which he refers to his 18th sonnet as one with two meanings,

This is desperate. You simply cannot
deal with my arguments as they stand.
You have to use a dodge like this!


Paul.