humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

> > Elizabeth wrote:
>
> > > Would you mind stating, in plain prose,
> > > what your theory is on the 'True' series?
>
> > > I would like to have a conversation
> > > without having to wade through piles of
> > > word debris.
.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> > Well, that's your problem right there, Elizabeth.
>
> > It's all about buzz words, code words, word games, etc.
> > ABSOLUTELY nothing is to be taken at face value.
.
Elizabeth wrote:
>
> Yes, ARt, I know that but IN CONTEXT.
>
> CONTEXT IS ALL.
>
> You remove everything from context
> and then expect us to gasp with
> delight. We don't know what
> in hell you're talkin' about.

I don't know what sort of CONTEXT you mean.
I've told you a thousand times the big picture is:

Oxford wrote Shakespeare but can only get it
published anonymously through his cousin Bacon.

That's almost all the CONTEXT I feel that
I really understand on the positive side.

On the negative side the CONTEXT is
that NOTHING can be taken literally.

So here, specifically, I'm talking about your statement:
-----------------------------------------------
Elizabeth wrote: <
. . .the Sea Venture had a critical flaw in her
newness, as her timbers had not set. The
caulking was forced from between them, and
the ship began to leak rapidly. All hands were
applied to bailing, but the water continued to
rise in the hold.

We can trust this statement because the
author himself is telling the reader that the
'oakum' is spewing out of every seam in the ship.>>
-----------------------------------------------
And I''m disagreeing with you that
"We can TRUST this statement" (!!!)
because we can't TRUST anything...and because
*OAKUM* , *SPEW* & *EVERy* are ALL code words.

The sinking of the fictional "Sea Venture" from wet *HEMPE* ,
the burning of the fictional "Globe" from burning *HEMPE*
and the fictional SPEWing out of Essex in 1601
are ALL metaphors for each other.
-----------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer