Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2002 :: February ::
Re: New York Times Articles
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0503  Thursday, 21 February 2002

[1]     From:           Hardy M. Cook <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:           Thursday, February 21, 2002
        Subj:           Re: New York Times Articles

[2]     From:           Brandon Toropov <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 06:24:37 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:           Re: SHK 13.0499 Re: New York Times Articles

[3]     From:           John Ciccarelli <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 10:18:36 -0500
        Subj:           Re: NY Times Article

[4]     From:           Andrew Walker White <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 11:31:03 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:           Re: SHK 13.0499 Re: New York Times Articles

[5]     From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 09:56:56 -0800
        Subj:           Re: SHK 13.0499 Re: New York Times Articles

[6]     From:           Philip Tomposki <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 13:55:40 -0500
        Subj:           Re: New York Times Articles


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hardy M. Cook <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, February 21, 2002
Subject:        Re: New York Times Articles

I think this thread has probably gone on long enough, given the
discussion parameters that I have established.

Hardy

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Brandon Toropov <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 06:24:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 13.0499 Re: New York Times Articles
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0499 Re: New York Times Articles

I wrote,

> >Sound and fury.
> >
> >I'm really surprised the Times bought into this.
> >
> >Brandon

David Kathman wrote:

> So am I.  But we're in verboten territory here, and
> I don't want to get
> a knuckle-rapping from Hardy.

In a totally unrelated development, I hear the Times is now planning a
six-part series exploring the ongoing controversy over whether or not
Paul McCartney is, in fact, dead. Much new "evidence" to examine,
including the possibility that George Harrison's recent shuffling off of
the mortal coil was an elaborate hoax meant to distract Beatles fans who
were finally homing in on the long-concealed truth. And let's be frank:
no album-cover clues whatsoever can be found to support the lead
guitarist's alleged demise.

Always two sides to every story, yes?

Brandon

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Ciccarelli <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 10:18:36 -0500
Subject:        Re: NY Times Article

It's sorry to say that this NY Times article is not an isolated incident
but part of disturbing trend.  Within the last two years, I've seen a
few other instances of otherwise reputable sources putting forth
Oxfordian notions as if they were accepted facts and giving no space for
a Stratfordian rebuttal.  The trend is either to present their case
directly or by presenting a traditional Shakespeare biography but
pointedly remark of the "controversy" surrounding his authorship or lack
of facts about his life.  The most flagrant of these was an article that
appeared in US News and World reports (a July 2001 issue, I believe).
It appeared in a series of articles called "Mysteries of History" and
went to on to state the usual Oxfordian points.  The article stated its
information with an air of absolute certainty.  I wrote a letter to the
editor pointing out several of their errors, but I received no
response.  Also I noticed that the only letters that were printed in
regards to the article were pro-Oxfordian.  I believe there is a link to
this article on Dave and Terry's page.

Examples of the "Let's slip this in" approach are the A&E influential
people of the millennium countdown and the History Channel's Lost and
Found episode profiling Shakespeare's will.  Both pieces featured the
usual pomp and reverence surrounding a Shakespeare biography but then go
on to make open-ended remarks about the signatures or no mentions at the
time of his death.  Just enough of these remarks are peppered into the
segment to give the viewer doubt, while giving no time to refute these
points.  The sad part about these presentations is that they may be used
as educational tools for many years to come and be taken at face value.

I have no doubt that we will be seeing more of these articles and
presentations in the near future.

John Ciccarelli

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Andrew Walker White <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 11:31:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 13.0499 Re: New York Times Articles
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0499 Re: New York Times Articles

Could it be that because it's theatre, the Times (and the Washington
Post, which did a similar hack job a few years back) don't feel it
necessary to get their facts straight?  They seem to give themselves
tons of permission to get it wrong, and rely on gossip, when it's
theatre.

Of course, some of us would point out that the Times and others have a
similar lack of interest in checking facts in the other sections of
their paper, too, but that's one I'd rather not touch for now.

The abiding rule for journalism, as I understand it, should always be:

"If your mother says she loves you, check it out."

Andy White

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 09:56:56 -0800
Subject: 13.0499 Re: New York Times Articles
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0499 Re: New York Times Articles

David Kathman observes, on the subject of an Oxfordian article in the
NYTimes:

>The author had been seduced by Oxfordians, and for some reason,
>otherwise intelligent people tend to toss their normal standards
>completely out the window once they're under the thrall of that cult.
>I've never quite understood it.

I'm wondering if this should make us reconsider our commitments to
interdisciplinarity.  Oxfordians like to trot out (otherwise) smart
people who hold their views, and I'm wondering if their ability to do so
just indicates that people can be highly trained in one or two areas
(say, American law or psychotherapy) and remain completely ignorant in
others (i.e., Shakespeare Studies).  Perhaps this should make us
question our own forays into law, history, psychotherapy, etc.

Cheers,
Se n.

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Philip Tomposki <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002 13:55:40 -0500
Subject:        Re: New York Times Articles

For those who are shocked (shocked!) by the NY Times ?authorship'
article, a quick primer on the fundamental principle of the news
industry:

Dog bites man - no news.  Man bites dog - NEWS!

Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare - no story.  Oxford, Marlowe, Bacon,
Elizabeth I and/or an alien from Alpha Centauri wrote Shakespeare -
STORY!

Philip Tomposki

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

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.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.