Re: Should we discuss authorship: NOW Private Mail to
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0474. Tuesday, 25 June 1996.
From: Porter Jamison <
Date: Monday, 24 Jun 1996 11:35:35 -0700
Subject: 7.0467 Authorship discussion
Comment: Re: SHK 7.0467 Authorship discussion
> Please give the authorship question some breathing room. . . . If you
> yourself think the question of no value, please allow those who do to
> follow up on their ideas.
Hear, hear! Providing, of course, that authorship discussion can be confined
to specific, well-marked threads and not meander into every single discussion,
as it seems wont to do...
> I know of one highly placed and frequently published academic who
> will admit to a strong interest in Oxford's candidacy, but who
> assures us that to mention it would be career suicide. . . . until
> paid researchers who are open to the possibility begin to seek out
> answers to the many anomalies, questions and confusions that have
> given rise to the authorship issue, it will never go away.
I, for one, would love to see the question debated rationally and ethically by
established academicians, free of the rancor and near-religious zealotry which
typifies most discussions on both sides of the issue.
I am not about to let a should-we-discuss-authorship thread to begin.
All future notes on this subject will be considered private mail to me and will
not be distributed to the members. I will, of course, bring up the issue with
the Advisory Board.
There are plenty of places one who is interested can discuss and read
about authorship: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare (The Newsgroup) and
www.bcpil.lib.md.us/tross/ws/will.html (Dave Kathman's and Terry Ross's
Authorship page) to name two. --HMC]