Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2013 :: August ::
Who Edited Shakespeare?

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0383  Monday, 5 August 2013

 

[1] From:        Bob Grumman < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         August 3, 2013 3:56:00 PM EDT

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Editing 

 

[2] From:        Gerald E. Downs < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         August 3, 2013 8:25:53 PM EDT

     Subject:     Re: Editing 

 

[3] From:        Stanley Wells < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         August 4, 2013 5:33:41 PM EDT

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Editing 

 

[4] From:        William Rubinstein < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         August 4, 2013 8:32:14 PM EDT

     Subject:     Shakespeare’s Editor 

 

[5] From:        Michael Egan < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         August 4, 2013 6:48:52 PM EDT

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Editing; Controversies 

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Bob Grumman < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         August 3, 2013 3:56:00 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Editing 

 

Sorry, but I have to pop off at Larry Weiss’s description of an “online Shakespeare discussion site which was completely consumed by (the authorship issue) and consequently lost its utility as an academic resource.” Not so. What happened was that it lost almost all of its utility as an academic resource for the life, works and times of Will Shakespeare, but it continued for some time to be an first-rate academic resource for the authorship issue (one, I might add that it’s too bad those publishing Shakespeare Without Doubt seem to have almost completely ignored). True, one had to be very tolerant of, uh, outspokenness and lunacy to be able get anything out of it, but for a while it supplied worthwhile data about Shakespeare and his times nowhere else available (it seems to me) and forced louts like me into learning things our laziness would have kept us from if not driven by the need to refute the wildly preposterous and infuriating arguments of our opponents. For those with my interest in psychology, it was also a wonderful clinic in which to observe certain forms of delusional thinking at their most interesting. It’s now less than it was due to most of its best participants’ departure but still has its moments. Shaksper is a wonderful resource, and I’m very glad Hardy outlawed discussions of the authorship question. But places consumed by that question can be of high value, too. 

 


Aside from that, I look forward to what Larry has to say about his recent tenure as a judge.  Indeed, I hope eventually there will be a book about that whole matter.
 

 

--Bob Grumman

 

[Editor’s Note: I banned discussion of “Authorship Question” [sic], thus resulting in the creation of the above-mentioned “resources.” Discussion of what happened can be found in my essay “Behind the Scenes with SHAKSPER” which can be downloaded from the link or from the “About” page: http://shaksper.net/about. -Hardy]

 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Gerald E. Downs < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         August 3, 2013 8:25:53 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: Editing

 

Peter Holland responded to my note:

 

> Gerald Downs might like to consider whether there is a difference

> between ‘And as my next book will show, I will have written another

> book’ and ‘And as my next book will show, I have written another

> book’. It depends, surely, on whether the book has already been

> written and will be published or will be written in the interim between

> now and publication.

 

Thanks for the opinion. I gave the wording some thought. The question is—to one born on the other side of Chomsky’s tracks, and not to broach forbidden subjects—how do ‘will’ and its verb in the first clause affect the second clause? They seem to take care of the future no matter when the book is written (or published) because a book can ‘show’ only after it comes to be; and that is too late for ‘future perfect.’

 

Englishpage.com (which I found just now) gets behind my notion under “Future Perfect Continuous” and “Time Clauses.”

 

> Notice in the examples above that the reference points . . . are in

> Simple Present rather than Simple Future. This is because these

> future events are in time clauses, and you cannot use future tenses

> in time clauses.

 

> Like all future forms, the Simple Future cannot be used in clauses

> beginning with time expressions such as: when, while, before, after,

> by the time, as soon as, if, unless, etc. Instead of Simple Future,

> Simple Present is used. Examples:

>

> When you will arrive tonight, we will go out for dinner. Not Correct

> When you arrive tonight, we will go out for dinner. Correct

 

So the time clause my book will show can’t be a ‘reference point’ for the future perfect, if I have it straight. By the way, I wasn’t commenting on “my next book will be my next book” per se, which seems to mark a proliferation of books—if “I taut I taw a tautology” isn’t enough to tweet.

 

Gerald E. Downs

 

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Stanley Wells < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         August 4, 2013 5:33:41 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Editing

 

The snide sneers about Salkend’s post do no credit either to their authors or to SHAKSPER.  

 

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        William Rubinstein < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         August 4, 2013 8:32:14 PM EDT

Subject:     Shakespeare’s Editor

 

Surely the most plausible editor of Shakespeare’s FF was Ben Jonson? We already know that he was directly involved. 

 

(Professor) William D Rubinstein, 

Melbourne, Australia

 

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Michael Egan < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         August 4, 2013 6:48:52 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Editing; Controversies

 

Cook, Weiss and Elliott have had their say at length. I will comment briefly.

 

1. Cook claims that people have never been banned from his listserv. I was removed from the mailing list for a couple of years and my comments were not published. Others have told me the same thing. I was recently allowed back on because of my response to Larry Weiss’s review of 1 Richard II.

 

2. I decline to bicker further on this listserv with Weiss and Elliott. Their long and prolix statements are filled with factual and other errors. Elliott says I tried to use the review process to sell my books—in fact I sent the panelists free copies at my own expense. Weiss says ludicrously that Edward the Black Prince and Edward III do not appear in 1 Richard II. In fact they are major characters referred to throughout and physically present in V.i. with major speeches. There is no point in arguing with people I can’t agree with on the most basic facts.

 

3. In my comment on Weiss’s review, attached here again for anyone interested, I explain my reasons for withdrawing from the panel’s process, admitting that “at a critical point, while we were still negotiating the ground rules, I withdrew, con­trary to my origi­nal intent and commitment.”  There doesn’t seem anything worth saying about it after this, though Weiss and Elliott keep saying it. Surely what is important is whether we have a new Shakespeare play or not.

 

4. We do.

 

Michael Egan 

 

Egan’s Reply to Weiss: icon Egans Reply to Weiss (PDF)  (PDF)

 

Egan’s Reply to Weiss: icon Egans Reply to Weiss (Word doc)  (Word doc)

 
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.