Peer Reviews and Shorthand

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0310  Friday, 20 July 2012

 

[1] From:        Steve Urkowitz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         July 19, 2012 11:04:35 AM EDT

     Subject:     Re: Peer Reviews and Shorthand 

 

[2] From:        Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         July 19, 2012 1:37:00 PM EDT

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Shorthand 

 

[3] From:        Jim Marino <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         July 19, 2012 2:43:49 PM EDT

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Shorthand 

 

[4] From:        Nick Ranson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         July 19, 2012 4:36:19 PM EDT

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Shorthand 

 

[5] From:        Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         July 19, 2012 5:24:51 PM EDT

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Shorthand 

 

[6] From:        Tom Reedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         July 19, 2012 5:39:08 PM EDT

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Shorthand 

 

[7] From:        Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         July 20, 2012 4:42:03 AM EDT

     Subject:     Shorthand 

 

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

From:        Steve Urkowitz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         July 19, 2012 11:04:35 AM EDT

Subject:     Re: Peer Reviews and Shorthand

 

Dear All,

 

First, I have to disagree with the august Harry Berger, Jr. about the continuation of the SHORTHAND string. Sometimes it takes a while for the story to tease its way out into the air, and I think that’s beginning to happen now.

 

Unlike Paul Werstine, who seems to have transmuted “narrative” into a four-letter word, at least in Shakespearean textual discourse, I have always found narratives to be among the best of our explanatory tools. I learned my bread and butter for several decades mostly teaching writing; I learned that often we make sense out of disparate data by forming a narrative that will help us make pattern out of the fog. We may be dead wrong, “a bush becomes a bear,” but given the time and space to sort out competing narratives we become wise. I think it is Stephen Booth “On the Importance of HAMLET” who points out that we hear and agree with Hamlet’s line about death being “that bourne from which no traveler returns” even as we saw and at least fictively believed that there was a ghost tromping across the stage before us a little earlier in the play. “No traveler returns” AND we just saw such a returned traveler. Booth points out that the mental phenomenon of holding these contradictory, indeed irreconcilable, items in our heads at the same time gives rise to the feeling of acrobatic mental capacity. He says, ever memorably, transmuting the voice-over from Olivier’s film, “Hamlet is the tale of an audience that cannot make up its mind.” The extravagantly contradictory Shakespearean textual data tends to make us feel supremely agile as we negotiate it even while we appear to others to be clumsily stumbling BEEN there, done that. Still do.

 

In any case, reading Gerald Downs’s narrative about his experiences with peer reviews prompted my memories of similar stories. An essay sent to Shakespeare Quarterly in the 1980s sat with them for 18 months, came back with suggestion for revision, went back to them after a couple of weeks, and then sat again, this time for a mere 12 months before being rejected totally. I found an “elsewhere,” in a festschrift, not requiring the same kind of vetting. During a long elevator ride at an SAA meeting I asked another journal editor (dear Arthur Kinney) for advice about finding a place another essay. He said to send it to him, and he ended up printing it in ELR. And the SHAKESPEARE’S REVISION OF KING LEAR volume that Gerald Downs finds so erroneous went to nineteen different academic publishers (in the form of an abstract with a note explaining that I was sending the abstract around to many at once), out of which only one thought enough of the abstract to call for a view of the full text. Whew! I lucked out, and with Princeton University Press. That was in the late 1970s. So, the peer-review process isn’t ideal, but it does work often, and it ain’t the only game in town.  

 

But to turn propaedeutic for a moment, let me suggest to Gerald Downs and those who don’t know about them the Shakespeare Association of America’s annual meeting Seminars.  These are on any Shakespearean topic, and the SAA Board actively encourages any and all suggestions for possible topics. They offer a chance for withered minds like mine as well as to freshly sprouted sources of insight to exchange writings in advance of a meeting and then to come together for (often) animated conversations at the annual convenings of the tribe. Ann Jennalie Cook invented the form, and the richness of our contemporary community’s discourse had been made possible by them. They ain’t fail-safe, of course. I recall one dismal gathering in far-off Brisbane, Australia, where, rather than discussion, we dozen-or-so textual scholars who had traveled half-around the world to talk were punished with not one but two droning 45-minute summations of the submitted papers (which of course we had all previously read), intoned ex cathedra, interruptions NOT invited. Despite such failures of the scheme, usually we get to try out ideas and see reactions outside the hit-or-miss rigors of a peer review process.  

 

So these are some of my narratives. I still think Gerald Downs really can’t see either the forest or the trees, scouring other people’s work for what he finds are egregious errors. (His SHAKSPER review of Grace Ioppolo’s DRAMATISTS AND THEIR MANUSCRIPTS . . . for example—as his comments on my work, too—should encourage readers to look again at Ioppolo’s writing and mine and then to wonder how Downs gets what we write s-o-o-o-o bent out of shape.) And I’d encourage him to join up in the dance, swing those theories and evidences into the whirl, smiling, rather than despair. Ah, Cleopatra, my love; you greeted Antony with your wonderful embracing question: “Comest thou smiling from the world’s great snare uncaught?"  

 

Being wrong isn’t so bad, after all.  Boring, though, is so bad.  

 

Ever,

Steve Urwrongowitz  (Errwrongowitz?) (Errorowitz? )

 

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

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

Date:         July 19, 2012 1:37:00 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Shorthand

 

>“Do I need to know this?” Etc. 

>

>Cheers

>John Drakakis

 

I love scholarly bickering. To me it’s all part of Shakespeare Studies. As are other things that I’m not interested in.

 

But I don’t suggest they not be discussed, I simply find ways to avoid them. 

 

The only posts I would ban (besides obvious spam) on a website I ruled would be posts that reduce to an expression of the desire that only posts I thought of value be allowed.

 

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

From:        Jim Marino <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         July 19, 2012 2:43:49 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Shorthand

 

As Gabriel says, Douglas Brooks is no longer alive to defend himself from Gerald Downs’ attacks on his character. And some of us were very, very fond of Douglas Brooks.

 

If Downs persists in this behavior, I will challenge him to a duel.

 

Jim Marino

 

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

From:        Nick Ranson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         July 19, 2012 4:36:19 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Shorthand

 

I entirely echo John Drakakis’ comments: anyone else agree?

 

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

From:        Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         July 19, 2012 5:24:51 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Shorthand

 

Gabriel Egan’s advocacy of double blind peer review is spot on. Under the present regime, many insightful papers are denied publication because the author is relatively unknown or is not in need of support for a tenure application, while a piece of fluff dashed off by a “name” author could not possibly be denied publication.

 

The only thing in Gabriel’s post that I disagree with is his suggestion that the reviewer’s anonymity be lost if the paper is accepted for publication, and that the reviewer’s comments be published along with the paper.  It seems to me that such a scheme would open the door to a variety of other abuses.

 

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Tom Reedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         July 19, 2012 5:39:08 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Shorthand

 

Gerald E. Downs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:

 

<snip>

 

> Most publications can use pre-publication discussion. Obviously, some

>don’t get it. In that respect, peer review is not very efficient. Though not 

>inclined to publish, I have some recent experience trying; assuming for 

>the nonce that I have something of worth to say on topics of interest to 

>me, description of a peer review or two may be in order.

<snip>

> If one realizes van Dam was correct to see STM’s Hand D as that of a 

>copyist, the first part of a difficult question (What’s Hand D?) gets easy. 

>Over the years I wrote it up and showed two scholars in 1996, one of 

>whom suggested publication. His professional interest made me feel an 

>obligation; anyone wishing to follow up would have to wait on me. For that 

>reason (and to credit van Dam, whose work in general gets short shrift) I 

>rushed to submit a paper—in 2004.

>

> Studies in Bibliography (my 2d choice) undertook an eleven-month peer 

>review ended favorably by the same person who encouraged me 

>years earlier. Was I one to look a gift-horse in the mouth? It bothered me 

>to have a leg up, but that was justified by a number of improving revisions 

>and the essay was scheduled for printing in 2007.

> Because of a thread on this group, Douglas Brooks and I corresponded

>in 2004 and I showed him the article for some feedback—but declined his

>request to submit it to his journal for a peer review. It was under review 

>elsewhere and little thought was given to his offer. In 2007 he published 

>the essay without my knowledge. Why? Who knows. Once SB was told, 

>the essay was understandably withdrawn. I took it pretty hard, but 

>mention it now only because Brooks later confirmed that the piece got 

>no peer review. So much for twelve years in the making, yet I’m still 

>mulling over Hand D because it still hasn’t been figured out and it’s 

>pretty interesting.

<snip>

 

Jerry is right in at least four statements: Most publications could use pre-pub discussion; peer-review (especially in this day and age of the Internet) is not very efficient; he was done wrong on his Hand D paper; and the problems of Hand D are pretty interesting. 

 

In fact, I tried to have a discussion with him about his Hand D paper on another venue some years ago, but he abandoned the field before the discussion progressed very far. A few interesting conclusions were drawn, and for the amusement of those who like to read such things, if Hardy will pardon my hijacking of the thread, here’s a set of chronological links of the substantive messages (it’s a lot more interesting than the discussion—or whatever it is—that’s been going on for what seems like six months or better, but that’s just my opinion).

 

1st  message in the thread (mine): https://groups.google.com/group/ardenmanagers/msg/15683905923f181e?hl=en

2. Jerry’s response: https://groups.google.com/group/ardenmanagers/msg/f7316bb737c43217?hl=en

3.TR:  https://groups.google.com/group/ardenmanagers/msg/a1e0708911962674?hl=en

4. JD: https://groups.google.com/group/ardenmanagers/msg/b1771ee5293a2a40?hl=en

5. TR: https://groups.google.com/group/ardenmanagers/msg/6dcb609bda7099f2?hl=en

6. JD: https://groups.google.com/group/ardenmanagers/msg/484eb5d0bf7f54d2?hl=en

7. TR: https://groups.google.com/group/ardenmanagers/msg/1cd2fbbe5c95d221?hl=en
8. Peter Groves chimes in: https://groups.google.com/group/ardenmanagers/msg/7b4d2e33f2daf57d?hl=en

9. PG: https://groups.google.com/group/ardenmanagers/msg/19a0d0fef0a7cebb?hl=en

10. TR: https://groups.google.com/group/ardenmanagers/msg/0a9ca50819ec183f?hl=en&

 

Tom Reedy

 

[7]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         July 20, 2012 4:42:03 AM EDT

Subject:     Shorthand

 

Gabriel Egan’s defence of peer review, let alone ‘double-blind peer review’, strikes me as extremely odd. What does he think editors are for?

 

Terence Hawkes

 

Shorthand

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0309  Thursday, 19 July 2012

 

[1] From:        John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         July 18, 2012 11:59:54 AM EDT

     Subject:     RE: SHAKSPER: Shorthand 

 

[2] From:        Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         July 18, 2012 12:36:53 PM EDT

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Shorthand 

 

 

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

From:        John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         July 18, 2012 11:59:54 AM EDT

Subject:     RE: SHAKSPER: Shorthand

 

I have followed the strand on ‘shorthand’, not because I have anything to contribute to it, but because I had hoped to learn something. In Gerald Downs’ latest posting I read more about his frustrations with reviewers. Do I need to know this, no matter how much I might sympathise with his frustrations? I’m all for a little bit of ‘flaming’ and harmless banter on SHAKSPER, but this is now getting out of hand.  Can we return to the concise, genially professional comments of the sort that Harry Berger has helpfully offered that present a challenge succinctly and accurately, without telling us what he’s had for breakfast or who his latest enemies might be.

 

Cheers

John Drakakis

 

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

From:        Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         July 18, 2012 12:36:53 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Shorthand

 

I sympathize with Gerald Downs’s experiences with peer review. The system is indeed imperfect. In all my dealings with journals, as would-be contributor and editor, I have advocated the use of double-blind peer review which, when properly practised, ought to avoid most of the problems Gerald Downs has experienced. It wouldn’t help with what Downs describes as the behaviour of the late Douglas Brooks, but since Brooks is not alive to defend himself I don’t think we can usefully explore that case.

 

I was scandalized to be part of a conversation at the Washington DC meeting of the Renaissance Society of America earlier this year in which a scholar just embarking on his career who had been given guest editorship of a special issue of a major journal blithely admitted that he didn’t plan to put the contributions through any form of peer review. I’ve been toying with the idea of complaining about this to more than just my friends and relatives as I really think it shocking.

 

As an advocate of double-blind peer review, I am troubled by these sentences by Downs:

 

<< For that article one of the reviewers was (I'm sure)

Gabriel Egan, with whom I had discussed an earlier version.

He has now officially judged the essay and would rather

not discuss that which didn't pass peer review. >>

 

Naturally, Downs’s implication of impropriety on my part is painful to me. I’d very much like to know why Downs is sure the reviewer was me. If the journal revealed to him the reviewer’s identity, it should not have. If it’s merely his hunch, I’d like to hear the evidence on which the hunch is based. If Downs is willing to throw light on this, I’m willing to say whether I was the reviewer.

 

The peer-review process could, in my view, be more transparent. In particular, I think reviewers should lose their anonymity when articles are accepted, and their reports should be published along with the articles.

 

Gabriel Egan

Sonnets on Audiocassette

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0308  Thursday, 19 July 2012

 

From:        Ellen Moody <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         July 18, 2012 2:45:39 PM EDT

Subject:     Sonnets on Audiocassette

 

Might I say how much I have loved an older reading of the sonnets by Gielgud; I have them on old audiocassette tapes.

 

Ellen Moody

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

[Editor’s Note: You can purchase an electronic audio version from Audible.com. –Hardy]

Some Likely Intertextuality/Bob Dylan as Prospero?

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0307  Thursday, 19 July 2012

 

From:        Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         July 18, 2012 2:59:17 PM EDT

Subject:     Some Likely Intertextuality/Bob Dylan as Prospero? 

 

Anyone interested in intextuality may find interesting the announcement Tuesday of the upcoming Bob Dylan album, TEMPEST. It will be his 35th studio album, to be released on September 11.  The album cover photo seems to be a modification of Bernini’s Ecstasy of St. Theresa. I might as well note that the album’s second listed song, “Soon After Midnight,” is rumored to be 14-minute song on a shipwreck (the Titanic).

 

The New York Times notes the Shakespearean resonance of all of this: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/new-dylan-album-tempest-coming-in-september/

 

Dylan is 71 years old as this album is released.

 

“Shakespeare, he’s in the alley with his pointed shoes and bells”

 

Jack Heller

 

[Editor's Note: You can see the album cover here: image  Dylans TEMPEST   -Hardy]

 

Shorthand

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0306  Wednesday, 18 July 2012

 

[1] From:        Harry Berger Jr <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         July 17, 2012 1:37:36 PM EDT

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: SHand 

 

[2] From:        Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         July 17, 2012 3:16:06 PM EDT

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: SHand 

 

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

     Date:         July 17, 2012 9:21:09 PM EDT

     Subject:     Peer Review 

 

 

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

From:        Harry Berger Jr <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         July 17, 2012 1:37:36 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: SHand

 

Gerald Downs’s diatribe is kind of boring. It would be nice if he fought his little battles away from this site.

 

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

From:        Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         July 17, 2012 3:16:06 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: SHand

 

Regarding the suggestion that in King Lear, F’s “Take up, take up” reflects Shakespeare’s revision of Qu’s nonsense “take up to keep”, although he had originally written “take up the King” (Qc’s reading), Gerald Downs writes:

 

> No author would revise other people’s travesties.

 

That is to say, the author wouldn’t build on another’s error but would return to his original reading. That was also P. W. K. Stone’s assertion about this problem in King Lear.

 

In fact authors demonstrably do what Stone and Downs say they would not do. Gary Taylor gives examples of James Joyce revising Ulysses using proofs containing printers’ errors, and in each case rather than returning to his original reading Joyce builds upon the error to make something new and, sometimes, inferior. Taylor also points to Charles Dickens doing this. See Gary Taylor “King Lear: The Date and Authorship of the Folio Version” in Gary Taylor and Michael Warren (editors) The Division of the Kingdoms: Shakespeare’s Two Versions of King Lear (Oxford: Clarendon, 1983), pp. 351-468 (pp. 401-2).

 

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

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

Date:         July 17, 2012 9:21:09 PM EDT

Subject:     Peer Review

 

On the “Shorthand” thread Gabriel Egan expressed a preference that might be discussed in various ways:

 

> Gerald Downs presents mountains of evidence and

> interpretation in his postings, and I for one would

> rather deal with such claims in the form of a journal

> article that has first been through peer review,

> which tends to sort the strong from the weak claims.

 

Evidence mountains bear discussion; discussion groups may be good places to start. Much that I put forward is neglected or poorly handled over years of articles and books. Shall it stay that way until someone else navigates a peer review? A few citations derive from SHAKSPER; are they valid only if stamped “approved”? From my perspective, “peer review” often isn’t; it leaves a lot to be desired.

 

Most publications can use pre-publication discussion. Obviously, some don’t get it. In that respect, peer review is not very efficient. Though not inclined to publish, I have some recent experience trying; assuming for the nonce that I have something of worth to say on topics of interest to me, description of a peer review or two may be in order.

 

First, some ancient history. My Shakespeare interests persist because so many questions remain unanswered and my opinions develop with no thought of publication. I like footnotes, but not to write them. Moreover, I’ve naively assumed others would straighten things out without my help. That’s still my feeling, but—not in my lifetime.

 

I’ve answered some questions to my satisfaction—that is, until details lost their charm. In which cases I would be happy to air my views but wouldn’t cross the street to alter anyone’s belief. My mind was partly changed by four topics I’ll mention (and some I won't).

 

If one realizes van Dam was correct to see STM’s Hand D as that of a copyist, the first part of a difficult question (What’s Hand D?) gets easy. Over the years I wrote it up and showed two scholars in 1996, one of whom suggested publication. His professional interest made me feel an obligation; anyone wishing to follow up would have to wait on me. For that reason (and to credit van Dam, whose work in general gets short shrift) I rushed to submit a paper—in 2004.

 

Studies in Bibliography (my 2d choice) undertook an eleven-month peer review ended favorably by the same person who encouraged me years earlier. Was I one to look a gift-horse in the mouth? It bothered me to have a leg up, but that was justified by a number of improving revisions and the essay was scheduled for printing in 2007.

 

Because of a thread on this group, Douglas Brooks and I corresponded in 2004 and I showed him the article for some feedback—but declined his request to submit it to his journal for a peer review. It was under review elsewhere and little thought was given to his offer. In 2007 he published the essay without my knowledge. Why? Who knows. Once SB was told, the essay was understandably withdrawn. I took it pretty hard, but mention it now only because Brooks later confirmed that the piece got no peer review. So much for twelve years in the making, yet I’m still mulling over Hand D because it still hasn’t been figured out and it’s pretty interesting.

 

I happened onto John of Bordeaux about 2006 and came to see that it is important to those who should care (but don’t). For learning’s sake, I’m grateful that Studies in Bibliography accepted my 2008 submission after another year-long review. Again suggestions were helpful and the article was published in 2010. Not that anyone has responded. I hoped Studies would continue publishing online; no such luck. My other gripe was that extended-in-time-but-not-substance peer review is frustrating, even though I cause far more delay on my own. As Shane says, I’d like it to be my idea. When reviewers take months and months to turn down articles they don’t understand . . .

 

I’ve spent a lot of time on the text of King Lear because it isn’t easy and much of the scholarship makes it harder. I sent a working-copy article to Richard Knowles some time ago. We hardly corresponded, but I realized his forthcoming edition wouldn’t agree with my opinions and decided on submission (on the off chance) ahead of his Variorum in order that it not seem a response but an independent work. I expected a negative review but again the process dragged on.

 

One of the reviewers seems to have been Richard Knowles. If that is correct, two questions occur to me. Should one unwilling to discuss an article pre-submission pass judgment on its worthiness later? In such cases should reviewers inform editors of prior correspondence? Else any druthers for arguing only a peer-reviewed piece are obviated by the review itself. Reviewer 1, Author 0.

 

In a PBSA exchange with Adele Davidson on shorthand transmission, Knowles stated that no evidence had been put forward in support of theatrical reporting. Yet by that time my article on Bordeaux was out and I naturally cited it to support my Lear theme (in agreement with Stone) that Q1 is a reported text. That is, I claim powerful evidence of shorthand reporting does exist. I think a reviewer would be obliged to evaluate that evidence, since it has a direct bearing on the issues. But the reviewer allowed that he could not evaluate this key evidence; then how can he judge the article on Lear? Beats me. At any rate, one may ask whether an editor putting the (telegraphed) finishing touches on his edition is the “peer” to review a mass of contradictory fact and opinion. May as well ask a Scaliawag or a Doubting Clarence.

 

A third reviewer was called in to break a tie. He said the article should be published—somewhere else. OK, I had no illusions of acceptance (until the process sputtered) and even felt a bit guilty laying elaborate and serious argument on an editor who said it was hard to find qualified reviewers. Add ‘unbiased’ and you see how it is.

 

As that affair lingered, I got the bright idea to submit another long piece dealing with shorthand reports. Most scholars (even the peerage) have given shorthand little thought and have in fact a distinct bias against it. I thought to support the first article with the second. Didn’t work.

 

I recently repeated a part of that article on this group with an evaluation of Q1 Philaster, which must be a shorthand report (I say). It was one of a series of plays Walkley published that included Q1 Othello, which has been thought a dictated reconstruction (by the respected scholar Scott McMillin). My idea was to bring shorthand into the mix. For that article one of the reviewers was (I’m sure) Gabriel Egan, with whom I had discussed an earlier version. He has now officially judged the essay and would rather not discuss that which didn’t pass peer review. But it could enlighten us to learn more about the process. Are my arguments weak or do they just contradict the reviewer? Did the editor know we had corresponded? Those questions and others will be the topic of my next “peer” posting.

 

Gerald E. Downs

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.