Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2003 :: May ::
Re: A Problem Like the Sonnets
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0942  Wednesday, 14 May 2003

[1]     From:   Don Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 13 May 2003 11:46:57 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0928 Re: A Problem Like the Sonnets

[2]     From:   Graham Hall <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 13 May 2003 20:11:13 +0000
        Subj:   Willy Shake - the Fake

[3]     From:   Dale Lyles <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 13 May 2003 16:45:59 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0898  Re: A Problem Like the Sonnets

[4]     From:   Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 14 May 2003 10:44:41 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0898 Re: A Problem Like the Sonnets


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Don Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 13 May 2003 11:46:57 -0500
Subject: 14.0928 Re: A Problem Like the Sonnets
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0928 Re: A Problem Like the Sonnets

John W. Kennedy writes in response to my query,

>>Since this is the second time this aphorism has appeared, I have to ask:
>>what the hell is an emotion that "no one has ever felt"? Is there
>>something you can do with emotions besides feel them?
>
>Alas, one can also imagine that one is feeling them.  Such is human
>life.

 Martin Steward offers a similar response:

>"Since this is the second time this aphorism has appeared, I have to
>ask: what the hell is an emotion that 'no one has ever felt'? Is there
>something you can do with emotions besides feel them?"
>
>Yes. One can "portray" them.

Well, yes. But I still don't understand what an un-felt emotion is. To
imagine an emotion requires a rudimentary knowledge of the emotion being
imagined. To portray it requires that both the author and the
viewer/reader
have felt it.

Sorry, but the idea of an unfelt feeling, though it might make an
interesting Zen koan, does not seem to work as a philosophical
proposition.

Cheers,
don

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Graham Hall <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 13 May 2003 20:11:13 +0000
Subject:        Willy Shake - the Fake

"Not that it really matters", as the sneezing tortoise of Never Ending
Story was wont to yawn, but if Shakespeare was "faking it enough to
produce progeny" as Carol Barton speculates (14.0851) then it would be
interesting to know what sort of "faking" was going on in the old second
best bed.  Not to mention, perhaps, any "faking" that was conducted in
the upper chamber of Mrs Davenant. As a wise scholar has recently well
remarked, "it cannot be dismissed out of hand". It would be unproductive
to cite the Burbage/RIII groupie anecdote for no offspring are known and
coitus interuptus may be a conceivable variable thanks to unexpected
knocking.

Yours Procreatively,
Graham Hall.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dale Lyles <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 13 May 2003 16:45:59 EDT
Subject: 14.0898  Re: A Problem Like the Sonnets
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0898  Re: A Problem Like the Sonnets

Greg McSweeney writes:

     Chaucer liked
     jelly doughnuts with coloured sprinkles on them.

Everyone knows coloured sprinkles were exclusively continental and
therefore unavailable to Chaucer (or his baker, Roger Duncan) until the
very end of his life. Or are you suggesting that Chaucer, like
Shakespeare, was Italian??

Dale Lyles
Newnan Community Theatre Company

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 14 May 2003 10:44:41 +0100
Subject: 14.0898 Re: A Problem Like the Sonnets
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0898 Re: A Problem Like the Sonnets


Re:  The post from John W. Kennedy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >

KENNEDY

>The only thing I'm biased against is lies.

I'm not exactly in favour of them myself.  Although I'd like to think
that my objection to lies -- and along with them selective quotation,
misattribution, and a whole range of things in this area -- goes beyond
mere bias.

KENNEDY:

>Far better scholars than I, such as
>David Kathman and Terry Ross, have argued the facts ad nauseam,

Exactly.  And if David Kathman can't change the world, what makes you
think you can?

A simple reference to David Kathman's site:

        http://shakespeareauthorship.com/

... would have been more useful than the froth of hysteria which you
produced in the wake of your misreading of Carol Barton's original
statement.

>but the
>same old drivel keeps spewing from the same old mouths,

And the same responses to it.  Either careful and patient refutation
(Kathman) or a greater or lesser expression of personal irritation.

Which latter response comes cheap.

Since David Kathman argues this issue (or so it seems to me) more
cogently and convincingly that anyone else, why reinvent the wheel?

Or do you think you can change the mind of an Oxfordian?  In that case,
you rate your powers of suasion higher than I do.

>>There are two absolutely stunning flaws in the above statement ...

SNIP

>This is merest sloganeering.

Ah, now I know what my day-job should really be.  I always thought I was
cut out to write advertising copy.  Taking your advice, I now intend to
offer my services to the Political Party that will bid the highest for
them.

>I could waste a good deal of time here
>with ASCII art, but suffice it to say that Venn diagrams and Set Theory
>yield the same results as Aristotelian logic for all syllogisms of type
>"Barbara".

There are two responses to this.

The short one is, "Bullshit!"

I'm sorry, I withdraw that.  Please replace that word with: "The above
statement shows a lamentable ignorance of the issues involved."

The longer answer is that, I admit, I should have been more careful in
the wording of my previous post. I didn't then realise that I would be
dealing with a trained logician.

Please replace "superseded" by "qualified", Aristotelian bipolar logic
bearing the same relation to multivalent Modern Logic(s) as Newtonian
physics does to Einstein and after -- subsets of a larger set.

[Mark Twain]

>An uninformed dupe, of course.

Oh, lord, if only I were allowed to define the grounds of an argument, I
could always win.

Playing strictly within your [implied] terms, on the Aristotelian field,
a syllogism:

    All anti-Stratfordians are EITHER mad OR dupes

    Mark Twain WAS NOT mad

    THEREFORE Mark Twain was a dupe.

True.  Absolutely "true" in the terms deployed.  But a "truth" both
partial and platitudinous.

>The cardinality of the intersection of
>the set of all novelists and the set of all qualified literary
>historians, though not zero, is very small,

Thank you for this oh-so-lucid exposition -- it's more colloquially
known as the Black Spot at the centre of a Venn Diagram.  Venn Diagrams
and Sets being topologically equivalent.

But this is all rather beside the point.

My objection to your earlier post wasn't based on your aversion to
anti-Stradfordians, which I share.

... without assuming that parading this aversion at a high degree of
volume will necessarily either interest other members of the list or
convince anti-Stratfordians.

When I wish to relish the sound of my own voice, I sing in the shower.

It's simpler, and less intrusive.

Robin Hamilton

_______________________________________________________________
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.