I have several talks about Mary Sidney as author coming up.
One is at the Newberry Library in Chicago, at their Wednesday Club. This will be Wednesday, May 7, 2008. The reception begins at 5:30 and my talk at 6:15. My dear friends Jim Price and Don Newcomb, founders of the ChicaGourmet Club (the premier gourmet source in Chicago) will also be creating a dinner event while I'm there. Stay tuned for more info.
Also in May, I'll be speaking at the UCLA Affiliates Luncheon in Los Angeles. That's May 15, 11:30 to 2 p.m.
If you're in town, please drop in and say hello!
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
New group open for discussion
I get email regularly from people who have questions or comments about Mary Sidney as the author of the shakespearean works. So I started a Google Group to facilitate an open discussion between interested people. Please visit and add your thoughts!
The address is http://groups.google.com/group/MarySidney.
The only rule about posting questions or comments is that you have to be nice! Even though other authorship groups, including shakespeareans, say really mean things to each other, we're not going to do that. We're the nice ones. :-)
The address is http://groups.google.com/group/MarySidney.
The only rule about posting questions or comments is that you have to be nice! Even though other authorship groups, including shakespeareans, say really mean things to each other, we're not going to do that. We're the nice ones. :-)
Shakespeare at Sea 2008
Wow—I just got word that I was invited back by the Ashland Oregon Shakespeare Festival to speak on the next Shakespeare at Sea cruise, November 2008. Judging from the line-up of speakers, I am the only one from the previous cruise who was asked to return. In fact, they asked me to do six presentations, but golly, it takes me a week to prepare each one! So I asked to do only five. At the moment, I'll be doing presentations on two of the plays that will be in the 2009 season at OSF, one on death in Shakespeare, one on the humours (which includes a self-test to see what kind of humour you are most abundant in, and which characters you are thus most like), and "Why Read Shakespeare?"
While I was at Macworld in San Francisco attending to the working-for-a-living part of my life, I was approached by the book buyer for the gift shop at OSF (Oregon Shakespeare Festival). She ordered 25 copies of Sweet Swan of Avon: Did a Woman Write Shakespeare? because four people from the cruise (where I was not allowed to even talk about Mary Sidney) have come in requesting the book. Aha! A breach in the wall.
While I was at Macworld in San Francisco attending to the working-for-a-living part of my life, I was approached by the book buyer for the gift shop at OSF (Oregon Shakespeare Festival). She ordered 25 copies of Sweet Swan of Avon: Did a Woman Write Shakespeare? because four people from the cruise (where I was not allowed to even talk about Mary Sidney) have come in requesting the book. Aha! A breach in the wall.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
The Year of Mary Sidney
Omigosh the past six months were hellacious, but I just sent off The Last Computer Book I Will Ever Write and am dedicated to spending the next thirteen months on nothing but Mary Sidney and the Shakespearean works. I just got back from doing four presentations and a quiz show on the Shakespeare at Sea cruise which was so successful they are already booking for next year. I was not allowed to talk about Mary Sidney or authorship at all, but that's okay because it was more important on this venture to establish my knowledge of the Shakespearean works and my presentation/teaching skills on that subject.
A couple of documentaries are in progress about Mary Sidney; I'm doing a talk about her at the Newberry Library in Chicago and to the UCLA affiliates in Los Angeles in May; Wiltshire Life magazine, where Mary's estate of Wilton House is located, has asked me to write an article for the magazine; the Kentucky Shakespeare Festival has asked me to come out and do a talk this summer; and more. I'll put up details in the next few days. I also plan to start a Google news group so all those of us interested can share information more readily. And I must update the MarySidney.com and MarySidneySociety.org sites! So much to do! More anon!
A couple of documentaries are in progress about Mary Sidney; I'm doing a talk about her at the Newberry Library in Chicago and to the UCLA affiliates in Los Angeles in May; Wiltshire Life magazine, where Mary's estate of Wilton House is located, has asked me to write an article for the magazine; the Kentucky Shakespeare Festival has asked me to come out and do a talk this summer; and more. I'll put up details in the next few days. I also plan to start a Google news group so all those of us interested can share information more readily. And I must update the MarySidney.com and MarySidneySociety.org sites! So much to do! More anon!
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Reasonable Doubt
The Shakespeare Authorship Coalition has formulated the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt About the Identity of William Shakespeare. It’s a document expressing the bona fide issues with the authorship (not actually the identity of the man named William Shakespeare) to educate people about the discussion and to advocate an open-minded examination. As the last line states, “We hereby declare that the identity of William Shakespeare should, henceforth, be regarded in academia as a legitimate issue for research and publication, and an appropriate topic for instruction and discussion in classrooms.”
As you may well know, the subject of authorship is strictly taboo in most colleges and universities—an odd contradiction in institutions that are supposed to explore and question and teach us to think for ourselves.
sigh.
But you have a chance to change all this! You are encouraged to sign the declaration yourself. If you do it by midnight (London time) on April 21, 2007, you will be on the historical list of initial signers. Your name will go down in history. Go to their web site: www.DoubtAboutWill.org and sign on!
As you may well know, the subject of authorship is strictly taboo in most colleges and universities—an odd contradiction in institutions that are supposed to explore and question and teach us to think for ourselves.
sigh.
But you have a chance to change all this! You are encouraged to sign the declaration yourself. If you do it by midnight (London time) on April 21, 2007, you will be on the historical list of initial signers. Your name will go down in history. Go to their web site: www.DoubtAboutWill.org and sign on!
Friday, March 16, 2007
Why English Professors Are Particularly Ill-Suited To Examine The Authorship Question
The following is a guest blog from Ross Carter.
As we know, most English professors -- I shall call them EPs -- are quick to dismiss anyone who lacks university credentials, as if their particular sect of scholarship represents the One True Way and followers of anything else are infidels. I won't deny that EPs working within the confines of their profession perform a valuable service; while I haven't yet figured out what it is, nevertheless I grant the possibility that they in fact do something worthwhile. But their profession has nothing to do with deductive reasoning, and that is what the Question is all about.
My point goes further than the simple fact that EPs have no special ability that makes them best suited to examine the Question. I contend that the nature of their work in fact renders them the least capable.
EPs live -- or at least work -- in a world where fact is secondary to supposition. What do EPs do? They publish articles that argue for or against some interpretation of a literary work. The principal source is the text of the work itself. The objective of the article is simply to get published, which essentially means writing something that peers who do the peer-reviewing will approve. It is a closed system. The EPs reach into the real world long enough to grab a literary work and then retreat into their private conclave, opinionating among themselves, writing articles that are incapable of verification or disproof. The only judges of their work are their own kinsmen.
As revealing as what EPs do is what they don't do. They don't, as far as I am aware, develop research techniques that enable them to interview living writers and discern what an actual author intended her work to convey. They don't investigate the creative processes that actual writers use. They don't compile data that will be of use to other scholars. In short they make no attempt to correlate their conclusions with the actual facts regarding what a writer intended to communicate; they do not even have research protocols developed for that purpose.
The EPs' world is entirely subjective. It is all argumentation about opinions that can never be verified or disproved. The fruit of an EP's labor is tested only as to its plausibility among compatriots. It is not fired in a crucible of observable fact, as in most other scholarly disciplines.
Back here in the real world, where EPs seldom venture, that crucible culls our every effort. Take for example a lawyer. His success depends not on what other lawyers think of him, but on his abilities, including above all his ability to make the right judgment from among an expanse of alternatives. Or take, say, a highly successful author of computer books. She could not have sold a gazillion fact-filled books if those facts were not accurate. In their careers, these people have to be right; not just plausible or provocative but right. They look at the facts available to them and make deductive judgments that are subjected to make-or-break dissection by disinterested or even hostile arbiters.
It should be clear to all who study the Authorship Question that it requires precisely that kind of ability. From available facts, the scholar submits a hypothesis that can be disproved or validated by the examination of other facts not known to the scholar when the hypothesis was offered. In this manner each scholar's effort contributes to our progressive knowledge.
The most important voices on the Authorship Question are those of people who have demonstrated success in the application of deductive reasoning. EPs can demonstrate nothing more than success in placating their colleagues. Those who are interested in the Question should regard lack of university credentials in English Literature as a credential in itself.
Ross Carter
From Robin: As Don Foster (the Vassar professor who "proved" the Funeral Elegy was written by Shakespeare and later someone else "proved" Shakespeare didn't write it) states, "In my field, no one is required to actually "prove" anything. We merely write incredibly clever commentary."
As we know, most English professors -- I shall call them EPs -- are quick to dismiss anyone who lacks university credentials, as if their particular sect of scholarship represents the One True Way and followers of anything else are infidels. I won't deny that EPs working within the confines of their profession perform a valuable service; while I haven't yet figured out what it is, nevertheless I grant the possibility that they in fact do something worthwhile. But their profession has nothing to do with deductive reasoning, and that is what the Question is all about.
My point goes further than the simple fact that EPs have no special ability that makes them best suited to examine the Question. I contend that the nature of their work in fact renders them the least capable.
EPs live -- or at least work -- in a world where fact is secondary to supposition. What do EPs do? They publish articles that argue for or against some interpretation of a literary work. The principal source is the text of the work itself. The objective of the article is simply to get published, which essentially means writing something that peers who do the peer-reviewing will approve. It is a closed system. The EPs reach into the real world long enough to grab a literary work and then retreat into their private conclave, opinionating among themselves, writing articles that are incapable of verification or disproof. The only judges of their work are their own kinsmen.
As revealing as what EPs do is what they don't do. They don't, as far as I am aware, develop research techniques that enable them to interview living writers and discern what an actual author intended her work to convey. They don't investigate the creative processes that actual writers use. They don't compile data that will be of use to other scholars. In short they make no attempt to correlate their conclusions with the actual facts regarding what a writer intended to communicate; they do not even have research protocols developed for that purpose.
The EPs' world is entirely subjective. It is all argumentation about opinions that can never be verified or disproved. The fruit of an EP's labor is tested only as to its plausibility among compatriots. It is not fired in a crucible of observable fact, as in most other scholarly disciplines.
Back here in the real world, where EPs seldom venture, that crucible culls our every effort. Take for example a lawyer. His success depends not on what other lawyers think of him, but on his abilities, including above all his ability to make the right judgment from among an expanse of alternatives. Or take, say, a highly successful author of computer books. She could not have sold a gazillion fact-filled books if those facts were not accurate. In their careers, these people have to be right; not just plausible or provocative but right. They look at the facts available to them and make deductive judgments that are subjected to make-or-break dissection by disinterested or even hostile arbiters.
It should be clear to all who study the Authorship Question that it requires precisely that kind of ability. From available facts, the scholar submits a hypothesis that can be disproved or validated by the examination of other facts not known to the scholar when the hypothesis was offered. In this manner each scholar's effort contributes to our progressive knowledge.
The most important voices on the Authorship Question are those of people who have demonstrated success in the application of deductive reasoning. EPs can demonstrate nothing more than success in placating their colleagues. Those who are interested in the Question should regard lack of university credentials in English Literature as a credential in itself.
Ross Carter
From Robin: As Don Foster (the Vassar professor who "proved" the Funeral Elegy was written by Shakespeare and later someone else "proved" Shakespeare didn't write it) states, "In my field, no one is required to actually "prove" anything. We merely write incredibly clever commentary."
Friday, January 12, 2007
It’s an American question.
Two Brits have coldly admonished me, with sniffs and noses in the air, that the Shakespearean Authorship Question is “merely an American question.” End of discussion. And that is one of Peter Holland’s two “arguments” against the authorship issue in his article about WS in the Dictionary of National [British] Biography (his other argument is, “You’re just a snob”).
Claiming it to be merely an American question (because Americans are somehow prone as a nation to conspiracy theories, Holland claims) seems to be almost as popular a line as “You're just a snob,” particular with the British. It’s also an ad hominem argument, as if somehow being an “American question” automatically makes it an inferior or stupid question or you are an inferior or stupid American for thinking such a thing (and consequently, the speaker is the superior English person). AND IT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE.
And like “You’re just a snob,” it skirts the issue without the speaker having to know anything about the question at all. Very convenient.
Funny, the Brits who told me this and the British Peter Holland all live in America.
Claiming it to be merely an American question (because Americans are somehow prone as a nation to conspiracy theories, Holland claims) seems to be almost as popular a line as “You're just a snob,” particular with the British. It’s also an ad hominem argument, as if somehow being an “American question” automatically makes it an inferior or stupid question or you are an inferior or stupid American for thinking such a thing (and consequently, the speaker is the superior English person). AND IT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE.
And like “You’re just a snob,” it skirts the issue without the speaker having to know anything about the question at all. Very convenient.
Funny, the Brits who told me this and the British Peter Holland all live in America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
