tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17974015.post2722563712310647554..comments2024-03-15T01:11:32.832-07:00Comments on Bardiac: Shakespeare Authorship, Part Three: Who Cares?Bardiachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11846065504793800266noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17974015.post-8590151503084392762008-07-11T08:25:00.000-07:002008-07-11T08:25:00.000-07:00Ugh, my penultimate sentence was really ugly. But...Ugh, my penultimate sentence was really ugly. But I think you can probably sort out my point.Dr. Viragohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03960384082670286328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17974015.post-18392558398353206182008-07-11T08:24:00.000-07:002008-07-11T08:24:00.000-07:00Bardiac, thanks for this series of posts. They ech...Bardiac, thanks for this series of posts. They echo all the reason why I'm frustrated by the whole authorship (non)debate: the evidence is flimsy, the assumptions classist, and the time to deal with all too precious to bother. "Shakespeare" is a perfectly handy author-function for amazing plays. (Though I do take Susan's point that there's something historically worthwhile in talking about the "who" responsible for the "what.")<BR/><BR/>And K8's point is one I always make to students if this comes up: a scholar who found hard, contemporary (i.e., early modern) evidence that "Shakespeare" was actually William Shakespeare of Stratford would have their career MADE by such a discovery. S/he might guard it until it was ready to present or publish, but NO WAY would an academic conspire to cover it up. And many of the conspiracy-loving anti-Stratfordians love to lob that silly claim that the academy is hiding the truth. (Does that make you Cancer Man from the X-Files, Bardiac?) Please.<BR/><BR/>I think at its root a lot of this (non)debate reveals not only classism but either anti-intellectualism or anxiety about academy that also reveals itself in all sorts of other myths of academy. It's not really about a body of wonderful literature at all!Dr. Viragohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03960384082670286328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17974015.post-83867061245942107262008-07-10T19:59:00.000-07:002008-07-10T19:59:00.000-07:00I've enjoyed the past few posts. Obviously, Shake...I've enjoyed the past few posts. Obviously, Shakespeare isn't my area at all. In fact, my most memorable experience with S. as an undergrad was in a theater course I took in Vienna (so yes, I've read some S. in german). <BR/><BR/>What gets me about the whole authorship "issue"/"conspiracy" is that certain elements (those promoting non-S. authorship) seem to think that academics would actually want to avoid the glory of proving that someone else was the actual author. We academics are a sometimes vain people and this just wouldn't happen. <BR/><BR/>I just don't get the people who think that people who research for a living would want to hide or obscure that sort of discovery, if it had been made. Just wouldn't happen, not for several centuries. We just aren't that organized.k8https://www.blogger.com/profile/07547334819703279971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17974015.post-3288861255644824902008-07-10T14:55:00.000-07:002008-07-10T14:55:00.000-07:00My take on this is that of a historian, not a lite...My take on this is that of a historian, not a literary scholar. That being said, the reason it matters to me is that Shakespeare is one of the ways people today make their way into the early modern world. So it's important because the reasons Shakespeare could write the plays offer an important window into the ways early modern England is different from us. And that's one of the things I really want people to get.<BR/><BR/>But otherwise, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".Susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09716705206734059708noreply@blogger.com