Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: September ::
Re: Funeral Elegy
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2114  Thursday, 6 September 2001

[1]     From:   Richard Nathan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 05 Sep 2001 13:53:29 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2108 Re: Funeral Elegy

[2]     From:   Philip Tomposki <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 5 Sep 2001 13:51:38 EDT
        Subj:   Re: Funeral Elegy

[3]     From:   Gary Allen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 5 Sep 2001 20:37:01 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2108 Re: Funeral Elegy


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard Nathan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 05 Sep 2001 13:53:29 +0000
Subject: 12.2108 Re: Funeral Elegy
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2108 Re: Funeral Elegy

Nancy Charlton complained about my ad hominum attack on Richard Kennedy,
in which I called him a raving lunatic.  If Ms. Charlton were aware of
the posts Richard Kennedy continually puts up on the
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare newsgroup, - as well as the posts
Kennedy sends in to Hardy Cook which Hardy refuses to put up here
because of his ban on authorship posts, I'm sure she would understand.

If she has any further doubts, she should go to Google Groups and look
up the sonnet by Kennedy which he recently posted, which he claimed was
as well crafted as any sonnet written by Shakespeare.  That should
convince her that Richard Kennedy is indeed a raving lunatic.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Philip Tomposki <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 5 Sep 2001 13:51:38 EDT
Subject:        Re: Funeral Elegy

Richard Kennedy writes:

"Nathan says that because we don't have documents or reports of any
mourning at Shakespeare's death, no notice, no elegies, and so forth, it
doesn't mean that there weren't any. That's very true.  And with such a
technique, we can claim anything at all to be true, and that the records
have not survived.  That seems to be a very useful tool for anybody
doing research into anything. If a document is needed to prove a thing,
we can suppose that it existed at one time but now it's lost.  That's a
nice shortcut for Nathan to get where he wants to go, rather like
flying, or floating in a balloon, or like a bird, his mouth working his
wings, flapping and flapping."

My, my!  The Creationist couldn't have said it better!  To wit:

"Darwinist say that because they don't have fossils of any transitional
species, it doesn't mean that there weren't any. That's very true.  And
with such a technique, we can claim anything at all to be true, and that
the records have not survived."  etc. etc.

Had Mr. Kennedy wanted an honest answer to his question, he would have
asked how Shakespeare compared to other playwrights in the number and
promptness of the eulogies written to him.  David Kathman's site, which
Mr. Kennedy seems to have read selectively, points out that Shakespeare
is not much different than his colleagues in that regard.  If Mr.
Kennedy has evidence to the contrary, he should present it to the list,
rather than his loaded questions.

Philip Tomposki

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gary Allen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 5 Sep 2001 20:37:01 EDT
Subject: 12.2108 Re: Funeral Elegy
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2108 Re: Funeral Elegy

Nancy Charlton writes:

> > Richard Nathan wrote:
>
>  > Richard Kennedy, as usual, doesn't have the faintest clue as to what he
>  > is talking about.  . . . Richard Kennedy has
>  > repeatedly shown himself to be a raving lunatic.
>
>  Undoubtedly mine will not be the only voice raised in protest against
>  this kind of blatant ad hominem attack.
>
>  As this thread has developed, Mr Kennedy's views have been progressively
>  shown to be in large part mistaken.  That is not the same thing as the
>  above quoted attacks, certainly not the latter of them.  If it were,
>  heaven help us all!
>
>  If I were to say something like this, it would (a) be off the record, in
>  face-to-face speech where emotional nuances would be plain; and (b) in
>  my mind's ear I'd be hearing my mom's voice saying, non-judgmentally,
>  'the pot shouldn't call the kettle black.'

I'm afraid that what you have encountered is a by-blow of ongoing
discussions from the humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare newsgroup.
Think of SHAKSPER as the lovely gardens where esthetes in Grecian
garments wander at their ease, then think of HLAS as the concert hall
where 140 ill-paid musicians are flailing away at "The Ride of the
Valkyries."  Fast and furious is rather the norm there, and R. Nathan is
responding in kind to the comments he receives from R. Kennedy
regularly.  Had you encountered more of "Mr Kennedy's views [which] have
been progressively shown to be in large part mistaken" in quantities of
hundreds if not thousands over a period of years, you, too, might
develop shorthand terms for "How is it that the Forbidden Matter is now
flourishing with such joy in SHAKSPER where once it was unspoken?"
Usher!!

Gary

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.