Basic Anti-Stratfordianism
Laila Roth
you are all wrong.
The Stratford case is clear: there is nothing to it.
Hardly any of the 37 or more plays are without clues
to the court or highest nobility. Derby was a cousin
to the royal family, and also his father-in-law Oxford
and even Bacon had family ties with the crown. Lyra's
remarkable findings in the case of the Parr family
also suggest that Marlowe was related with royalty.
Only one person was not: that Stratford upstart.
It has ever so often been pointed out, that what
separates Shakespeare from ordinary people and writers
is his noble mind. There is nothing nobler in
literature when he sets his mind to it, and that
familiarity with pure nobility and even royalty can
only be acquired by birth. A rustic from Stratford
could never have acquired that royally noble mind at a
mature age after having spent all his youth and lack
of education in the country. This basic anomaly in the
Stratford oaf excludes him from any possibility in
having had anything to do with composing the plays and
poems of Shakespeare.
The Stratfordians discard this observation as
"snobbism", since they lack that nobleness themselves.
Since they lack insight into that dimension of life,
they exclude it as a possibility. We are speaking
psychology here. It has ever happened that nobles have
taken up common disguises to side with ordinary men
just to cultivate their empathy with common life, but
it has never happened that a common man (like our
Stratford bloke) has been able to assume the colours
of high nobility without having been unmasked as an
impostor - like Greene did with that "upstart crow".
Only simple minds are easily deceived, but there are
always those you never are fooled that easily, not
even if the fraud is allowed to carry on for
centuries.
Derby had perfect political reasons for hiding his
authorship being royalty himself and even a Catholic,
Oxford before him had reasons good enough, Bacon's
possible reasons appear less self-evident unless he
was in fact son of the Virgin Queen, while also
Marlowe had reasons to conceal his authorship if he
survived 1593. Even the Stratford opportunist had
excellent reasons for letting his name be used, since
he got the profits, which was his only interest.
Laila Roth, Derbyite
John W. Kennedy
> It has ever so often been pointed out, that what
> separates Shakespeare from ordinary people and writers
> is his noble mind. There is nothing nobler in
> literature when he sets his mind to it, and that
> familiarity with pure nobility and even royalty can
> only be acquired by birth.
and then wrote:
> The Stratfordians discard this observation as
> "snobbism", since they lack that nobleness themselves.
There are two alternate conclusions that can be drawn from
these two pieces of evidence.
1) Laila Roth is incapable of logical thought.
2) "Laila Roth" is a pseudonym for Lord Burford.
Judging from her almost complete inability to write a coherent
English sentence, I'm inclined toward option #1 -- but I don't
personally know Burford.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly;
the rich have always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton, "The Man Who Was Thursday"
Mark Hansen
not against Shakespeare, but for so-and-so.
It's so easy to say OJ didn't do it;
so tell us who did.
Mark
lyra
> Laila Roth wrote:
> > It has ever so often been pointed out, that what
> > separates Shakespeare from ordinary people and writers
> > is his noble mind. There is nothing nobler in
> > literature when he sets his mind to it, and that
> > familiarity with pure nobility and even royalty can
> > only be acquired by birth.
>
> and then wrote:
> > The Stratfordians discard this observation as
> > "snobbism", since they lack that nobleness themselves.
>
> There are two alternate conclusions that can be drawn from
> these two pieces of evidence.
>
> 1) Laila Roth is incapable of logical thought.
>
> 2) "Laila Roth" is a pseudonym for Lord Burford.
>
> Judging from her almost complete inability to write a coherent
> English sentence, I'm inclined toward option #1 -- but I don't
> personally know Burford.
I think Laila Roth,
like several of the men at hlas,
has English as a second language,
if so she is quite accomplished
at writing it...
When they use English unusually,
perhaps without meaning to,
I often like this a great deal,
as it becomes a kind of creativity,
causing something new.
I also like *normal* English of course!
...and wouldn't want it completely replaced.
It reminds me also of John Baker,
whose strange spellings or typos
I became convinced were a sign of
Irish ancestry...
the Irish have always gone in for
this kind of thing,
including John Lennon's
*In His Own Write*,
and much earlier examples.
lyra
Laila Roth
Derby, of course. Why else would I call myself a Derbyite, which I
always did here in HLAS for my unmistakable identification?
To John W.: Thanks at least for not calling me a liar, which you
constantly do anyone who just tells the truth.
Laila Roth, Derbyite.
John W. Kennedy
> To John W.: Thanks at least for not calling me a liar, which you
> constantly do anyone who just tells the truth.
Liar!
But tell me, are you actually so crack-brained that you cannot
see the gross absurdity of your previous posting, even now that
I have pointed it out? Or is it just that your real parents
(the ones who live in a palace, and are going to punish all
the people who were mean to you, and give you your own pony)
haven't come to claim you yet?
Mark Hansen
> always did here in HLAS for my unmistakable identification?
I understand you may "feel" he's the real author,
but how about a little evidence?
How about HIS time-line in relation to the plays,
writing comparisons?
Alot of people "felt" Jon-Benet was killed by her parents,
including me.
Mark
Laila Roth
> Laila Roth wrote:
> > To John W.: Thanks at least for not calling me a liar, which you
> > constantly do anyone who just tells the truth.
>
> Liar!
>
> But tell me, are you actually so crack-brained that you cannot
> see the gross absurdity of your previous posting, even now that
> I have pointed it out? Or is it just that your real parents
> (the ones who live in a palace, and are going to punish all
> the people who were mean to you, and give you your own pony)
> haven't come to claim you yet?
You call me a liar without specifying wherein I lie nor without
proving that I lie. Your statement is just an emotional outburst. That
makes you one of the two worst advocates for the Stratford oaf in
HLAS, the other one being the automaton KQKnave, who never states
anything original.
As to my private life, you seem to know more about it than I. Maybe
you can tell me some more about it.
Laila Roth, Derbyite
Peter Groves
news:fb346be4.02101...@posting.google.com...
| "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:<RCmr9.14456$L42....@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
| > Laila Roth wrote:
| > > To John W.: Thanks at least for not calling me a liar, which you
| > > constantly do anyone who just tells the truth.
| >
| > Liar!
| >
| > But tell me, are you actually so crack-brained that you cannot
| > see the gross absurdity of your previous posting, even now that
| > I have pointed it out? Or is it just that your real parents
| > (the ones who live in a palace, and are going to punish all
| > the people who were mean to you, and give you your own pony)
| > haven't come to claim you yet?
|
| You call me a liar without specifying wherein I lie nor without
| proving that I lie.
The non-crack-brained are capable of noticing that John's response is to
your assertion that he calls "anyone who just tells the truth" a liar (hint:
it comes immediately after it). It's a proposition he hardly needs to
prove, BTW. The real mystery is how someone who is demonstrably so
cognitively dysfunctional could imagine that they could have anything of
interest to contribute to a scholarly discussion.
Peter G.
KQKnave
lail...@yahoo.co.uk (Laila Roth) writes:
>You call me a liar without specifying wherein I lie nor without
>proving that I lie. Your statement is just an emotional outburst. That
>makes you one of the two worst advocates for the Stratford oaf in
>HLAS, the other one being the automaton KQKnave, who never states
>anything original.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Xr...@pxcr8.pxcr.com
It generally takes some level of competence to recognize incompetence.
There is a relevant online article in Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology:
_Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments_
Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University
Abstract
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many
social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this
overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these
domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous
conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them
of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors
found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor,
grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and
ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they
estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this
miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to
distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of
participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped
them recognize the limitations of their abilities.
The full paper is at: http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
I think the real mystery has to do with how we can best get someone(who
possesses no competence to begin with) to seriously consider the
possibility that they are incompetent.
Rob
Laila Roth
You grumpy old men are funny.
You must be talking about John W. He DOES call anyone who dares to
state any critical truth against the Stratford oaf a liar. He has done
so some 20 times or more this year. His idea of a lie is something
that goes against his conviction, which to him is the sole truth in
the whole world, and woe to anyone who dares to challenge it!
So who is the liar? Someone who tells the truth according to his mind,
or John W who calls any such person a liar without proving it?
Here is some of the evidence for the Earl of Derby:
1) Only he was a Lancashire man, which the dialectal anomalies in
Shakespeare indicate their author to be.
2) He was a son-in-law of Oxford and his collaborator, so it was
natural for him to carry on where Oxford laid off.
3) "A Midsummer-Night's Dream" was written for his own wedding by
himself, Theseus being his own self-portrait. The astrological
statements in the play give it the exact date of the earl of Derby's
wedding.
4) "Hamlet" is his self-confession, his own brother was murdered by
poison (Ferdinando Stanley), and he was himself brushed aside from the
throne by king James, his cousin.
And so forth. I will make a complete list one of these days.
Laila Roth, Derbyite.
Elizabeth Weir
This isn't Oxford, Groves. It's a public forum.
Elizabeth Weir
What. Have the Ramsey's been cleared?
Tom Reedy
news:Pine.A41.4.44.021018...@pcr8.pcr.
com...
I think about all you can do it keep them away from
sharp objects and try to divert their minds with
harmless ideas like antiStratfordism.
TR
Peter Groves
| Here is some of the evidence for the Earl of Derby:
|
| 1) Only he was a Lancashire man, which the dialectal anomalies in
| Shakespeare indicate their author to be.
|
| 2) He was a son-in-law of Oxford and his collaborator, so it was
| natural for him to carry on where Oxford laid off.
|
| 3) "A Midsummer-Night's Dream" was written for his own wedding by
| himself, Theseus being his own self-portrait. The astrological
| statements in the play give it the exact date of the earl of Derby's
| wedding.
|
| 4) "Hamlet" is his self-confession, his own brother was murdered by
| poison (Ferdinando Stanley), and he was himself brushed aside from the
| throne by king James, his cousin.
|
| And so forth. I will make a complete list one of these days.
|
| Laila Roth, Derbyite.
This is your idea of "evidence"? I hope, for your sake, that you're joking.
Peter G., rational human being
Peter Groves
news:efbc3534.02101...@posting.google.com...
Your rushing to the defence of the crack-brained and their right to talk
bollocks shows commendable solidarity and fellow-feeling.
Peter G.
Rob Zigler
at reed...@earthlink.net wrote on 10/18/02 10:07 PM:
<snip>
>>
>> I think the real mystery has to do with how we can
> best get someone(who
>> possesses no competence to begin with) to seriously
> consider the
>> possibility that they are incompetent.
>>
>>
>> Rob
>
> I think about all you can do it keep them away from
> sharp objects and try to divert their minds with
> harmless ideas like antiStratfordism.
Ha! Tom's Stratfordian pranks are notorious. He
grows bored and the next thing we know, some poor sap
has been provoked to frothy spittle. When he argues
for an increase in the supply of anti-Stratfordians,
we must suspect an ulterior motive.
Rob
David Kathman
Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote:
As Samuel Schoenbaum wrote in *Shakespeare's Lives*
about antistratfordians: "One thought perhaps offers
a crumb of redeeming comfort: the energy absorbed
by the mania might otherwise have gone into politics."
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Laila Roth
You are a humbug, Sir. Instead of refuting my arguments, you accuse
me, like Tom Reedy, David Kathman, Rob and all the rest of you, of
incompetence, thus masking your total inability to refute my
arguments. The fact that my arguments have not been disproved, means,
they are valid, until they are disproved. Thatæ„€ the scientific
procedure, of which you all in the Stratford mob have proved
yourselves incompetent.
Laila Roth, Derbyite
Neil Brennen
news:<pk3s9.56505$g9.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
> > Elizabeth Weir <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:efbc3534.02101...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Your rushing to the defence of the crack-brained and their right to talk
> > bollocks shows commendable solidarity and fellow-feeling.
> > Peter G.
>
> You are a humbug, Sir. Instead of refuting my arguments, you accuse
> me, like Tom Reedy, David Kathman, Rob and all the rest of you, of
> incompetence, thus masking your total inability to refute my
> arguments.
Perhaps they got tired of refuting them again and again?
The fact that my arguments have not been disproved, means,
> they are valid, until they are disproved.
According to that statement, we know Shakespeare's cat wrote the sonnets, as
claimed by Bob Grumman. After all, this claim has never been refuted.
That´s the scientific
Tom Reedy
scientific
> procedure, of which you all in the Stratford mob have
proved
> yourselves incompetent.
>
> Laila Roth, Derbyite
Er, before anyone can refute your arguments you have to
make some. You have not done that. A list of
unsupported assertions ("A Midsummer-Night's Dream" was
written for his own wedding by himself, "Hamlet" is
his self-confession) are neither arguments nor evidence
of anything but your delusional state of mind.
TR
Alan Jones
> The fact that my arguments have not been disproved, means,
> procedure...
Is this in fact accepted as "the scientific procedure"? I mean, if I say
that the moon is made of green cheese on the grounds of a vague resemblance
in colour and texture, must there be an expedition to the moon to take
samples before I can be convicted of talking nonsense? Is it not necessary
for me first to establish by observation and careful analysis that my theory
makes good sense and is more?
Your argumenst
Mark Hansen
If you see the evidence that has come to light,
yes, IMHO.
Look, believe what you want to belive.
Have you read Park Honan's book?
Mark
Christian Lanciai
> "Laila Roth" <lail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:fb346be4.02101...@posting.google.com...
> > "Peter Groves" <Monti...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:<pk3s9.56505$g9.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
> > > Elizabeth Weir <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:efbc3534.02101...@posting.google.com...
> > > | This isn't Oxford, Groves. It's a public forum.
> > >
> > > Your rushing to the defence of the crack-brained and their right to talk
> > > bollocks shows commendable solidarity and fellow-feeling.
> > > Peter G.
> >
> > You are a humbug, Sir. Instead of refuting my arguments, you accuse
> > me, like Tom Reedy, David Kathman, Rob and all the rest of you, of
> > incompetence, thus masking your total inability to refute my
> > arguments.
Don't get angry, Laila. Try to be patient with those whose patience
you are trying.
>
> Perhaps they got tired of refuting them again and again?
>
There might be something to what Neil says here.
> The fact that my arguments have not been disproved, means,
> > they are valid, until they are disproved.
>
> According to that statement, we know Shakespeare's cat wrote the sonnets, as
> claimed by Bob Grumman. After all, this claim has never been refuted.
>
That's ridiculous, of course. Cats can't write since they lack fingers
and can't read. Grumman's jokes usually fail to be funny.
> That´s the scientific
> > procedure, of which you all in the Stratford mob have proved
> > yourselves incompetent.
> > Laila Roth, Derbyite
A thesis is no more than a theory until it is proved true or false. A
theory isn't true just because it can't be proved untrue.
Since my last post was ignored at that other thread, I'll include it
here, in case you haven't read it, to show where I stand in relation
to Derby. Like Bacon, the Derby hints in Shakespeare clearly show he
had something to do with Shakespeare, which though doesn't prove him
to be Shakespeare.
Here is my post in an answer to Elizabeth:
"elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote in message news:<efbc3534.02101...@posting.google.com>...
> clan...@hotmail.com (Christian Lanciai) wrote in message news:<7e67b43b.02101...@posting.google.com>...
>snip of Grumman etc<
> > All the "Bacon evidence" has a peculiar stamp of its own.
>
> It's far less peculiar than the Burgher's which is very burgerish but
> not Shakespearean.
>
The Burgher is out of the question. Let's just forget him. He was just
a suitable name to put as a trademark on the show.
> > It's never
> > conclusive but always misses definiteness by some inches.
>
> This is how the evidence adds up, Chris.
>
> There are only two categories. Those who have evidence of
> authorship [Bacon and the Burgher] and those who have
> no evidence of authorship [Oxford and Marlowe].
>
> In the first category there are three possibilities.
>
> 1. The evidence is evenly balanced and there is a
> stalemate between Bacon and the Burgher in which the authorship
> will remain in doubt.
>
> 2. That Bacon has better evidence and is probably the
> author.
>
> 3. That Bacon is the author beyond reasonable doubt.
>
This is a leading question. I would suggest an alternative:
2.5. While the evidence for Bacon is by no means final, the evidence
for the Burgher is negligible in comparison.
>
> > Although the
> > Bacon evidence is overwhelmingly voluminous
>
> That's a fact.
>
> > it's always evasive,
>
> A concealed poet has to conceal his name.
>
> 1. Bacon could not put his name on literary works when Burghley was
> alive because Burghley, who was Bacon's source of support until Bacon
> started writing for Burghley's enemy Essex, liked to make speeches
> about how Italian sonnets were corrupting the youth. As a closet
> Calvinist the Puritan Burghley was not in favor of the theatres
> either.
>
> Since Bacon was dependent upon Burghley's influenceto get a place at
> Court Bacon had to conceal his writings from Burghley. Or at least
> keep
> his name off of them which was the same to the hypocrite Burghley.
>
This is all very well and reasonable, but, (if Bacon wrote
Shakespeare) he kept his name off the works even long after all the
Cecils had gone, and for no obvious reason. He had nothing to lose in
putting his name on "The First Folio". The only risk about such a
venture would have been accusations of imposture - if someone else had
written the works. The fact that Bacon did not lend his name to FF or
any of the following folios nor any English play at all remains a
valid argument against his being the original author of any English
Elizabethan play ever.
> 2. Bacon was writing for Burghley's enemies, the Leicester-Sidney
> faction.
> Later he wrote for the Cecil's arch-enemy Essex. Bacon could not
> afford
> to publicly identify himself with the Puritan faction and hope to get
> a
> position in Elizabeth's Court. Elizabeth disliked the Puritans at
> Court
> except for her "Sweet Robin," Robert Dudley. Elizabeth also "loved
> plays
> but hated playwrights."
>
This is the first time I hear that Dudley and Essex were Puritans.
Every reasonable mind had reason to loathe them. If Bacon sided with
the Puritans, how do you make that fit into the fact of his
persecution unto death of Raleigh, whom the Puritans made their hero
after his death?
> 3. Bacon's father was sanctioned for writing a book. Sir Nicholas
> Bacon--the
> most able man in government--was kicked off the Privy Council and
> banned
> from Court for two years for publishing a book under the name of his
> law clerk.
>
> 4. Bacon, as the son of the de-facto Lord Chancellor, expected
> to get a high appointment at James I's Court. Writing republican
> political plays for the public theatres would not good on his resume.
> The profession of playwright was declasse as well, especially at a
> time
> when the Puritans were railing against the public theatres in
> Parliament.
>
> > as if
> > missing the point on purpose, as if he never left traces of evidence
> > without increasing the smoke screen.
>
> That's in the job description for concealed poets.
>
> > That's why his evidence never is
> > convincing.
>
> If Bacon wasn't Shakespeare why does he have Shakespeare's missing
> evidence?
Shakespeare's missing evidence makes the so called evidence for him
very suspect indeed. The fact that Bacon's evidence is definitely more
manifest ensures him at least a position as a Shakespeare editor.
>
> Have you noticed that Bacon has Shakespeare's missing evidence--
> manuscripts--while Shakespeare has Bacon's missing evidence--
> printed title pages.
>
> > We need proof, and Bacon produced it as little as Oxford,
> > Marlowe and Derby.
>
> Only two out of the top five have evidence. Bacon and the
> Burgher.
>
So that makes it one. But not even Bacon's evidence is final.
> > The only way this could be explained, if the
> > Shakespeare author really was Bacon, is that he wanted to remain
> > anonymous as a playwright. There is no logic to support that theory.
>
> It's not about logic. It's about observable evidence. Bacon has it.
> Shakespeare has it. Marlowe, Oxford and Derby don't have it.
>
> > The evidence for Oxford and Marlowe is more psychological: their
> > characters fit into Shakespeare better than Bacon does.
>
> We read the plays through the author. Bacon gives the plays the
> correct reading as the Elizabethans read them. They are menippean
> satires, not romantic comedies or romantic tragedies. Dripping with
> irony.
>
Jonson drips with irony. Shakespeare does not - before the tragedies.
His style is, apart from his dark period 1600-10, on the whole
constructively idealistic and romantic. You can't make that
romantic-idealistic outlook, which marks even most of his chronicles,
fit into the dry and harsh almost cynical realism of Bacon.
> > In fact, from
> > the life of Bacon could be drawn an overwhelming multitude of
> > arguments against Bacon being the author, while both Oxford and
> > Marlowe psychologically fit perfectly.
>
> Of course Oxford and Marlowe are a perfect fit for the plays. The
> Ogburns didn't rely on Oxford's documents in the British archives,
> they fictionalized an Oxford from Hamlet and the Sonnets. The Ogburn
> method
> produces an Oxford that is absolutely perfect for the plays, not the
> Oxford who didn't know first year Latin, whose thick East Anglican
> dialect was a barrier to authorship and who was dead when topical
> references
> dated in the reign of James I were written into the plays. Marlovians
> have done the same thing. Invented an author *from* the works who
> is then a perfect author *for* the works.
There is nothing to connect Bacon with Marlowe's works, for instance
"Arden of Feversham", which is a local Canterbury play clearly written
by someone intimately familiar with the real plot (experienced by
Marlowe's parents) and its geographical settings. When I first read
Marlowe it struck me how much greater was his dramatical imagination
and potential force than Shakespeare's, who always has something
resigned and pessimistic about him. When I read "Edward II" the case
was clear to me: here was the perfect Shakespeare in full bloom and in
consummate command of his art - before Shakespeare. Shakespeare
appears as suddenly as Marlowe disappears - and in precisely the same
moment. It can't be just a coincidence. After the total
self-immolation at Deptford, the more mature and resigned Shakespeare
fits perfectly into the picture of a purged Marlowe. Nothing in
Marlowe and almost nothing in Shakespeare fits into the dry scientific
and perfectly prosaic desert mind of Bacon. Most of all: the Sonnets.
No one has been able to explain them better than Dolly Wraight, who
alone has succeeded in interpreting their story, which fits Marlowe
only and no one else. Cockburn's explanation of them, that they are
all fantasy, is not satisfactory. Cockburn's work is wholly admirable
especially for his piece-by-piece-annihilation of Shakspere, but his
explaining away of the Sonnets is his weakest point.
However, there are definite Bacon connections, not only to Francis but
also to Anthony, which Peter Farey knows much about. I believe Anthony
and Francis were Marlowe's chief contacts during his exile on the
continent after 1593, and after Anthony's death and Marlowe's return
to England (in time to stage "Twelfth Night" for the Duke of
Bracciano's visit to Elizabeth's court, the duke himself being
Orsino,) I believe Francis was his chief protector and agent and
manager. Some sonnets indicate that he did not stay around London,
which is when he probably went to Derby in Lancashire for some years
to write the great tragedies while his case definitely was lost by the
fall of his first patron Raleigh.
The Marlowe explanation with Bacon as his editor is to me the most
reasonable explanation of the whole Shakespeare mystery.
There is also that Marlowe-Oxford connection: the earl of Oxford
staged Marlowe's first work, "Scanderbeg", and Marlowe probably
learned very much from Oxford's experience and proud personality,
enough to survive as a palpable character stamp in all of Marlowe's
(and later Shakespeare's) plays. When Oxford was no more, Derby was
there instead, a much more cautious and shrewd Catholic politician who
knew to evade the pitfalls of Essex, Raleigh and Bacon."
with compliments to your intrepid defence of Oxford and Derby,
Chris
Neil Brennen
"Christian Lanciai" <clan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e67b43b.02102...@posting.google.com...
> "Neil Brennen" <chessne...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<aosud3$una$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > "Laila Roth" <lail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > they are valid, until they are disproved.
> >
> > According to that statement, we know Shakespeare's cat wrote the
sonnets, as
> > claimed by Bob Grumman. After all, this claim has never been refuted.
>
> That's ridiculous, of course. Cats can't write since they lack fingers
> and can't read.
But you think it probable debauched noblemen who died in 1604, or a poet
murdered in 1593 wrote Shakespeare? Now who is ridiculous?
>Grumman's jokes usually fail to be funny.
All Grumman has to do much of the time is play straight man to Crowley,
Weird, Pestold, Roger Nyles Parasite, Lalia Bosh, etc...
Bob Grumman
sonnets, as
> > claimed by Bob Grumman. After all, this claim has never been refuted.
>
> That's ridiculous, of course. Cats can't write since they lack fingers
> and can't read.
Actually, I said the sonnets were by Will TO his cat (except, of course, for
the Dark Lady ones, which I didn't mention since--like PWBard--I didn't want
to spill EVERYthing before my book came out). Neil was simply using the
anti-Stratfordian mode of reading to determine what I REALLY said.
> Grumman's jokes usually fail to be funny.
Right, you're the authority.
> > Thatæ„€ the scientific
> > > procedure, of which you all in the Stratford mob have proved
> > > yourselves incompetent.
> > > Laila Roth, Derbyite
>
> A thesis is no more than a theory until it is proved true or false. A
> theory isn't true just because it can't be proved untrue.
What happened, Chris? This is a sane statement. You could have added,
however, that a theory isn't necessarily sane just because it can't be
proven untrue.
--Bob G.
Neil Brennen
"Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
news:aou6m...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > > According to that statement, we know Shakespeare's cat wrote the
> sonnets, as
> > > claimed by Bob Grumman. After all, this claim has never been refuted.
>
> > That's ridiculous, of course. Cats can't write since they lack fingers
> > and can't read.
>
> Actually, I said the sonnets were by Will TO his cat (except, of course,
for
> the Dark Lady ones, which I didn't mention since--like PWBard--I didn't
want
> to spill EVERYthing before my book came out). Neil was simply using the
> anti-Stratfordian mode of reading to determine what I REALLY said.
No, Neil made an error. My apologies to Chris and Bob.
However, no one has refuted the assertion that Shakespeare's cat wrote the
sonnets. This means, according to the scientific method established by Lalia
Bosh and Poul Chowdley, that the claim is valid.
As for Chris' statement that cats cannot write, and they don't have fingers,
we don't know what cats were like in the 16th century, and there is evidence
of talking cats in many illustrations of witchcraft and witch-hunting
published up until the 18th century. I was shown some of these by the
Baconian Broderick Beagle. They were first published in Baconian literature
years ago along with the Tarot-readings of Robert Frost, and you'll have to
take my statements on faith as I'm unwilling to site a reference.
lyra
> Neil Brennen wrote in message news:<aosud3$una$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > Laila Roth wrote in message news:fb346be4.02101...@posting.google.com...
> > > Peter Groves wrote in message
news:<pk3s9.56505$g9.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
> > > > Elizabeth Weir wrote in message news:efbc3534.02101...@posting.google.com...
> > > > | This isn't Oxford, Groves. It's a public forum.
> > > >
I think in fact he's a Cambridge man...(?)
but it's true that only those who start a newsgroup
(and it wasn't, I think, Groves etc.)
really have the final decision how it shall be...
(or the chance to moderate it...)
any of us who didn't like would then have
the opportunity to start one of our own.
(Takes a while to do this though!)
<snip of much interesting stuff>
> Some sonnets indicate that he did not stay around London,
> which is when he probably went to Derby in Lancashire for some years
> to write the great tragedies while his case definitely was lost by the
> fall of his first patron Raleigh.
or (Kit Marlowe this refers to)
to his relatives at
Parr Hall Farm, (St. Helens,)
near the great Derby estates in
Lancashire,
and which they rented from the Derby family...
also to Kendal Castle,
Westmoreland,
unoccupied since William Parr's death,
and which he was to have inherited
if it's true he's Parr's son.
lyra
Peter Groves
>
> Christian Lanciai wrote in message news:<7e67b43b.02102...@posting.google.com>...
> > Neil Brennen wrote in message news:<aosud3$una$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > > Laila Roth wrote in message news:fb346be4.02101...@posting.google.com...
> > > > Peter Groves wrote in message
> news:<pk3s9.56505$g9.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
> > > > > Elizabeth Weir wrote in message news:efbc3534.02101...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > > > | This isn't Oxford, Groves. It's a public forum.
> > > > >
> I think in fact he's a Cambridge man...(?)
> but it's true that only those who start a newsgroup
> (and it wasn't, I think, Groves etc.)
> really have the final decision how it shall be...
> (or the chance to moderate it...)
I don't recall trying to silence anyone. I leave that to our agents in
the field. They're very efficient, and they've got a little list (anyone
heard from Dr Faker or Okay Fine recently?)
Peter G.
> any of us who didn't like would then have
> the opportunity to start one of our own.
> (Takes a while to do this though!)
>
> <snip of much interesting stuff>
>
> > Some sonnets indicate that he did not stay around London,
> > which is when he probably went to Derby in Lancashire for some years
> > to write the great tragedies while his case definitely was lost by the
> > fall of his first patron Raleigh.
>
> or (Kit Marlowe this refers to)
> to his relatives at
> Parr Hall Farm, (St. Helens,)
> near the great Derby estates in
> Lancashire,
> and which they rented from the Derby family...
> also to Kendal Castle,
> Westmoreland,
> unoccupied since William Parr's death,
> and which he was to have inherited
> if it's true he's Parr's son.
>
> lyra
--
Dr Peter L. Groves
Department of English
School of Literary, Visual & Performance Studies
PO Box 11A, Monash University
VIC 3800 Australia
Phone: +61 3 9905 2155
Fax: +61 3 9905 2135
Home: +61 3 5968 3879
EMAIL: Monash: Peter....@arts.monash.edu.au
Home: Monti...@bigpond.com
"What men really want is not knowledge but certainty." (Bertrand
Russell)
David Kathman
<Peter....@arts.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>lyra wrote:
>>
>> Christian Lanciai wrote in message
>news:<7e67b43b.02102...@posting.google.com>...
>> > Neil Brennen wrote in message news:<aosud3$una$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>...
>> > > Laila Roth wrote in message
>news:fb346be4.02101...@posting.google.com...
>> > > > Peter Groves wrote in message
>> news:<pk3s9.56505$g9.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
>> > > > > Elizabeth Weir wrote in message
>news:efbc3534.02101...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> > > > > | This isn't Oxford, Groves. It's a public forum.
>> > > > >
>> I think in fact he's a Cambridge man...(?)
>> but it's true that only those who start a newsgroup
>> (and it wasn't, I think, Groves etc.)
>> really have the final decision how it shall be...
>> (or the chance to moderate it...)
>
>I don't recall trying to silence anyone. I leave that to our agents in
>the field. They're very efficient, and they've got a little list (anyone
>heard from Dr Faker or Okay Fine recently?)
>
>Peter G.
They've been "taken care of", if you know what I mean. They
won't be causing any more trouble. The orders came straight
from Peter Greenblatt and Gail Kern Paster, but don't go trying
to prove it, if you know what's good for you. I've already said
too much already.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
David Kathman
beautif...@yahoo.com (lyra) wrote:
>Christian Lanciai wrote in message
>news:<7e67b43b.02102...@posting.google.com>...
>> Neil Brennen wrote in message news:<aosud3$una$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>...
>> > Laila Roth wrote in message
>news:fb346be4.02101...@posting.google.com...
>> > > Peter Groves wrote in message
>news:<pk3s9.56505$g9.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
>> > > > Elizabeth Weir wrote in message
>news:efbc3534.02101...@posting.google.com...
>
>> > > > | This isn't Oxford, Groves. It's a public forum.
>> > > >
> I think in fact he's a Cambridge man...(?)
> but it's true that only those who start a newsgroup
> (and it wasn't, I think, Groves etc.)
> really have the final decision how it shall be...
> (or the chance to moderate it...)
> any of us who didn't like would then have
> the opportunity to start one of our own.
> (Takes a while to do this though!)
This newsgroup was founded by an Oxfordian, Marty Hyatt,
and it has never been moderated. Here is the Request
for Discussion which he posted on the SHAKSPER list
on June 8, 1995:
http://www.shaksper.net/archives/1995/0463.html
The newsgroup became live about two months later,
in early August 1995. It wouldn't take that long
to create a new Usenet group, I wouldn't think,
but gaining support for such an idea might be a problem.
I would think that a web-based forum would be easier
to start up.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Tom Reedy
news:aovssu$mk9$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
==-o2345mjnewp9uwould quit joking around like this.
(*lkjwe987JhBob's already got Art all paranoid, and
you're just -7647-9(*(4132``going to
make;ljsadoihaS-00-09 it worse. Someday
09709732){*ufy)%w2(&GYsomebody's going =$*&^%0-08_to
let something slip, and then you-know-what's
_)09LMO875T43*&%%*0NLK0974going to
happen.KJHOPIoih;io)*(&*^%#o;ih8e3i75tfvO(u%76rP)O098y+
0-[n hy5
3r[ojDA_(u )*(*)9ujg4tq,kw9ueui=0rkihgbMajor
Tom{)&_(Ujm k3gt9-oujmdxz0=ikxdsGround
Control)(&)(U4tpoihjdscoihndxcolb
Elizabeth Weir
I don't have any "beliefs" about the Jon-Benet case.
I haven't read Park Honan's book but I'll look
it up.
Alan Jones
"Alan Jones" <a...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XDss9.10040$wI2....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Laila Roth" <lail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:fb346be4.02101...@posting.google.com...
> [...]
> > The fact that my arguments have not been disproved, means,
> > procedure...
>
> Is this in fact accepted as "the scientific procedure"? I mean, if I say
> that the moon is made of green cheese on the grounds of a vague
resemblance
> in colour and texture, must there be an expedition to the moon to take
> samples before I can be convicted of talking nonsense? Is it not necessary
> for me first to establish by observation and careful analysis that my
theory
> makes good sense and is more> ?
>
Sorry - I accidentally sent this instead of saving it. Let me continue.
..... makes good sense and is more than a speculation.
Your arguments seem very weak and not based on evidence.
1. DIALECT Some time ago you posted a list of words supposedly
demonstrating that the author of Shakespeare's works came from Lancashire,
or at least had a strong connection with Lancashire. A quick check in OED's
citations showed that very few of the words had that connection and that
there were at least as many - even in that Derbyite select list - suggesting
a Warwickshire origin. So the evidence is simply not there.
2. OXFORD Truly a broken reed on which to lean.Where is the evidence that
Derby and Oxford collaborated on the plays, or indeed that either of them
had any connection whatever with the Globe and its staff? This is pure
invention, isn't it?
3. MND The editors of the Complete Oxford Shakespeare say "It has often
been thought that Shakespeare wrote the play for an aristocratic wedding,
but there is no evidence to support this speculation." To suggest that it
was written by Derby for his own wedding is even more outrageous. Even if
the dates you derive from the play are valid (and you'd need to argue that
point more persuasively), isn't it possible that other couples were married
on that day? If, of course, one already knew that Derby wrote MND, and if
the dates were proved valid, then we should have a delightful sentimental
detail to amuse us; but it's hardly logical to use such a detail to prove
his authorship when it could equally apply to other people's weddings. At
best you may have an interesting coincidence.
4. HAMLET Your summary of Derby's unfortunate family history shows no
similarity to the plot of "Hamlet": even the relationships are not parallel.
In any case, why pick "Hamlet"? If one play is autobiographical, why not the
rest? And if not the rest, why "Hamlet"?
Alan Jones
Peter Groves
To be fair, it's possible that the play was written for Derby's wedding.
But to the sane (as Bob would say) this doesn't constitute evidence that
Derby wrote it. Quite the reverse, I'd say: imagine having to organise the
caterers, write the witty speech, deal with the florists, and on top of that
knock out a blank verse comedy! I should cocoa [an untranslatable
Anglicism].
Peter G.
Laila Roth
> > > > > > > > Elizabeth Weir wrote in message news:efbc3534.02101...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > > > > | This isn't Oxford, Groves. It's a public forum.
> > > > > >
> > I think in fact he's a Cambridge man...(?)
> > but it's true that only those who start a newsgroup
> > (and it wasn't, I think, Groves etc.)
> > really have the final decision how it shall be...
> > (or the chance to moderate it...)
>
> I don't recall trying to silence anyone. I leave that to our agents in
> the field. They're very efficient, and they've got a little list (anyone
> heard from Dr Faker or Okay Fine recently?)
>
> Peter G.
>
This sounds to me like a bad conscience. No one has accused you of
silencing anyone. Concerning Okay Fine, I never had the pleasure of
meeting him in HLAS; but he seems to be well remembered still for his
wit besides having had that advantage of not being stuck on any
particular candidate. Like you (or unlike you) I hope he returns some
day. When that happens, if it happens, it will be an interesting
pleasure at least for me.
Concerning Dr Baker, I understand he was more or less demolished in
HLAS, which was very unlike the general HLAS policy, which ordinarilöy
permits any crack-brain to put up with any incredible nonsense at all.
Why would John Baker have been any different to have been made such an
exception to HLAS tolerance?
Thanks for your address and career details, Dr Groves, but I won't use
them.
Laila Roth, (or, as someone for some reason calls me, Laila Bush,)
still a Derbyite.
<snip of the rest to shorten the message>
Laila Roth
> "Alan Jones" <a...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:XDss9.10040$wI2....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> > "Laila Roth" <lail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:fb346be4.02101...@posting.google.com...
> > [...]
> > > The fact that my arguments have not been disproved, means,
> > > they are valid, until they are disproved. Thatæ„€ the scientific
> > > procedure...
> >
> > Is this in fact accepted as "the scientific procedure"? I mean, if I say
> > that the moon is made of green cheese on the grounds of a vague
> resemblance
> > in colour and texture, must there be an expedition to the moon to take
> > samples before I can be convicted of talking nonsense? Is it not necessary
> > for me first to establish by observation and careful analysis that my
> theory
> > makes good sense and is more> ?
> >
> > Your arguments
>
> Sorry - I accidentally sent this instead of saving it. Let me continue.
>
> ..... makes good sense and is more than a speculation.
>
> Your arguments seem very weak and not based on evidence.
>
Good Alan, I would like to discuss these items at some length, but
unfortunately I have only some rush time at HLAS after midnight, which
does not allow me to spend hours turning to the files and books and
other references, which your arguments are calling for. I can only
answer your queries by shorthand.
> 1. DIALECT Some time ago you posted a list of words supposedly
> demonstrating that the author of Shakespeare's works came from Lancashire,
> or at least had a strong connection with Lancashire. A quick check in OED's
> citations showed that very few of the words had that connection and that
> there were at least as many - even in that Derbyite select list - suggesting
> a Warwickshire origin. So the evidence is simply not there.
>
Since I am not originally English, I am certainly no expert of this.
This list was not posted by me, and I had nothing to do with it,
although I am familiar with it. The originator of the list is a
scientist of good reputation, but still, I can not judge it.
> 2. OXFORD Truly a broken reed on which to lean.Where is the evidence that
> Derby and Oxford collaborated on the plays, or indeed that either of them
> had any connection whatever with the Globe and its staff? This is pure
> invention, isn't it?
>
Not quite. Derby married Oxford's daughter, both were great theatre
enthusiasts with their own companies, and both wrote plays. In
addition to this, the play production of both has remained unknown, so
it could actually have been "Shakespeare". Don't forget, that Oxford
had a fellow shaking a spear in his arms. The assumption that
"Shakespeare" was just a symbol for Oxford is not far-fetched at all.
> 3. MND The editors of the Complete Oxford Shakespeare say "It has often
> been thought that Shakespeare wrote the play for an aristocratic wedding,
> but there is no evidence to support this speculation." To suggest that it
> was written by Derby for his own wedding is even more outrageous. Even if
> the dates you derive from the play are valid (and you'd need to argue that
> point more persuasively), isn't it possible that other couples were married
> on that day? If, of course, one already knew that Derby wrote MND, and if
> the dates were proved valid, then we should have a delightful sentimental
> detail to amuse us; but it's hardly logical to use such a detail to prove
> his authorship when it could equally apply to other people's weddings. At
> best you may have an interesting coincidence.
>
I rely here mostly on information from Honigmann, who elucidates the
circumstances around Derby and MND at some length, explaining the
astrology involved.
> 4. HAMLET Your summary of Derby's unfortunate family history shows no
> similarity to the plot of "Hamlet": even the relationships are not parallel.
> In any case, why pick "Hamlet"? If one play is autobiographical, why not the
> rest? And if not the rest, why "Hamlet"?
>
Also here I need more time to be able to discuss this problem, which
calls for deeper construing. I can't say now when this opportunity
will rise. Better to say nothing than to say anything in haste.
There is so much more I would like to say, but my eyes refuse to keep
open. Some other time.
Laila Roth, still a Derbyite
Peter Groves
| Thanks for your address and career details, Dr Groves, but I won't use
| them.
|
Sorry about that -- it's an automatic signature, and when I post from work I
very occasionally forget to scroll down and delete it.
Peter G.
Neil Brennen
> Laila Roth, (or, as someone for some reason calls me, Laila Bush,)
It's Laila Bosh.
Elizabeth Weir
Fact: I am defending the *right* of the crack-brained as you
so uncivilly put it, to talk bullocks.
I don't agree with their "bullocks."
Fact: I have no "solidarity" with Oxfordians, Marlovians. The
Baconians don't demand solidarity. Apparently Baconians are
permitted to dissent.
Fact: What appears to be "fellow feeling" among ideologues is just
bonding around a designated common enemy. It wasn't Baker's credentials
that drove HLAS Strats into a frenzy. It was the perverse joy of
bonding around Baker's destruction.
Roundtable
Just wanted to say that this whole thread made me laugh like crazy...
just when I was thinking that HLAS was becoming too boring for words...
Roundtable
Peter Groves
If you read more carefully you'll find that I never contested that right
(enshrined, after all, in the US Constitution -- whwre would President Shrub
be without it?) . I was merely marvelling at the inability of the
cognitively dysfunctional to recognise their own cognitive dysfunctionality
(as was pointed out, this is less surprising than it initially seems).
| I don't agree with their "bullocks."
You demonstrate your usual carefulness in reading: the word is "bollocks"
(or sometimes "ballocks"), meaning nonsense (like "balls", to which it is
related).
|
| Fact: I have no "solidarity" with Oxfordians, Marlovians. The
| Baconians don't demand solidarity. Apparently Baconians are
| permitted to dissent.
|
The solidarity I spoke of was that between nit-wits.
| Fact: What appears to be "fellow feeling" among ideologues is just
| bonding around a designated common enemy. It wasn't Baker's credentials
| that drove HLAS Strats into a frenzy. It was the perverse joy of
| bonding around Baker's destruction.
Faker didn't have any credentials, and that was the point: it was his humbug
that irritated us.
Peter G.
John W. Kennedy
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<RCmr9.14456$L42....@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>
>>Laila Roth wrote:
>>
>>>To John W.: Thanks at least for not calling me a liar, which you
>>>constantly do anyone who just tells the truth.
>>
>>Liar!
>>
>>But tell me, are you actually so crack-brained that you cannot
>>see the gross absurdity of your previous posting, even now that
>>I have pointed it out? Or is it just that your real parents
>>(the ones who live in a palace, and are going to punish all
>>the people who were mean to you, and give you your own pony)
>>haven't come to claim you yet?
>
>
> You call me a liar without specifying wherein I lie nor without
> proving that I lie.
The context makes it clear that you lied about me, and the proof
is readily available in Google. So that's two more lies.
> Your statement is just an emotional outburst.
And another lie.
> That
> makes you one of the two worst advocates for the Stratford oaf
Two more lies, one about me, and one about William Shakespeare.
> in
> HLAS, the other one being the automaton KQKnave, who never states
> anything original.
And a lie about Jim.
> As to my private life, you seem to know more about it than I. Maybe
> you can tell me some more about it.
You asked for it:
You weren't adopted. Those people you hate really are your
parents. The aristo couple you've been fantasizing about
all these years never existed outside of your fevered brain.
And if you're ever going to get a pony, you'll have to
earn the money to buy it yourself. You have no special
sensitivity to Shakespeare, whom, in fact, you do not
understand at all.
In short, you're nothing but an ignorant little tart with
delusions of grandeur, and with all the intellectual
integrity of a party hack or a member of the Ohio School
Board. But cheer up; that means you're perfectly qualified
to be the next artistic director of the New Jersey
Shakespeare Festival.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly;
the rich have always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton, "The Man Who Was Thursday"
John W. Kennedy
> The real mystery is how someone who is demonstrably so
> cognitively dysfunctional could imagine that they could have anything of
> interest to contribute to a scholarly discussion.
Kruger-Dunning syndrome.
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
Unskilled and Unaware of It:
How Difficulties in Recognizing
One's Own Incompetence Lead to
Inflated Self-Assessments
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
Roger Nyle Parisious
Congratulations,Mark, you are the first Strat to call attention to
this.So far, two innocent peoples lives have been a political football
here at HLAS as well as in the gutter press.
The terrifying thing about this is that Foster made his alleged
forthcoming triumph in the Ramsey case a major issue in his
recantation on the "Funeral Elegy"
At the time Jerry Downs and I wrote
.jerry...@aol.com (JerryDowns) wrote in message news:<20020621022921...@mb-mw.aol.com>...
> >Note: I hope Foster, or a spokesman for him, will say how all this
> >affects his work on which roles Shakespeare probably played. Was
> >the same data he now says was corrupt involved in that?
> >
>
>
> "All I need to do is get one attribution wrong ever, and it will discredit me
> not just as an expert witness in civil and criminal suits but also in the
> academy."
>
> Jerry Downs
There are ominous ,and ,as yet, undiscussed subtones to Donald
Foster's
recantation.Foster stated,"My experience in recent years with
detectives...
has,I hope, made me a better scholar...My experience with anonymous
documents
in criminal investigations indicates that competent and trusted
people...parents
...often commit acts or write texts you wouldn't expect of them."
In the major (only?)anonymous text involving parents on which
Dr.Foster has contributed his expertise,he identified a fifty year old
Southern housewife as a twenty-two year old preppie who was being
educated in the Northwest and then identified the confabulated
personality of his own creation with the authorship of a certain
infamous ransom note. He had an entire web site of data with which to
work.
His later reidentification has been contemptuously rejected by a
grand jury
that spent many months investigating the quality of his allegations.
Donald,come back to the Academy before you kill some innocent
person out there. All will be forgiven,may be.
I was asked here recently how I distinguish between Stratfordianism
and neo-Stratfordianism.Answer by the excesses of Foster groupies.Too
bad they don't read Honan.
Bob Grumman
> displaying her customary discomfort with the English language here, but
> was attempting instead some feeble bovine jest at Oxfordians' expense;
> however, I subsequently read the post in which Elizabeth opined that
> the name "Shakespeare" is too "syllabant" [sic], followed in rapid
> succession by the post in which she upbraided Bob Grumman for the use of
> "weazle [sic] words," so I have been compelled to reconsider -- it
> seems far more likely that her gaffe above is attributable to her
> Streitzian command of English.
Haw, I gave her credit for being Joycean, but I suspect you're closer to
being right than I, David--even if you did misspell "succession" (which I
corrected).
--Bob G.
Laila Roth
> Peter Groves wrote:
> > The real mystery is how someone who is demonstrably so
> > cognitively dysfunctional could imagine that they could have anything of
> > interest to contribute to a scholarly discussion.
>
> Kruger-Dunning syndrome.
>
> http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
>
> Unskilled and Unaware of It:
> How Difficulties in Recognizing
> One's Own Incompetence Lead to
> Inflated Self-Assessments
>
> Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
> December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
So you ridiculous grumpy old men are quite satisfied with brushing all
Shakespeare problems under the carpet by stamping any opponent as
mentally unfit or unreliable or incompetent etc., thus negating the
existence of any Shakespeare problem, such as his lack of any
university education (although the Shakespeare canon betrays at least
considerable Cambridge experience), the fact of his daughters being
totally uneducated (the daughters of the established greatest bard of
the English language) and so forth. Pardon me, but you are just making
yourselves ridiculous.
Of course I am painfully aware of my own self-limitation, which
however you gentlemen don't seem to be at all.
Laila Roth, Derbyite
Bob Grumman
> Shakespeare problems under the carpet by stamping any opponent as
> mentally unfit or unreliable or incompetent etc.,
How is it that almost every time any sane person criticizes the mental
processes of ONE Shakespeare-rejector to that Shakespeare--rejector, the
Shakespeare-rejector almost always claims that the sane person is
criticizing EVERYONE who disagrees with him?
--Bob G.
abcedminded
> > So you ridiculous grumpy old men are quite satisfied with brushing all
> > Shakespeare problems under the carpet by stamping any opponent as
> > mentally unfit or unreliable or incompetent etc.,
>
> How is it that almost every time any sane person criticizes the mental
> processes of ONE Shakespeare-rejector to that Shakespeare--rejector, the
> Shakespeare-rejector almost always claims that the sane person is
> criticizing EVERYONE who disagrees with him?
>
> --Bob G.
As someone with an interest in psychology, Bob, you
should know: the propensity to overgeneralize from
limited information. It's one of the cognitive quirks
essential for the maintenance of fixed ideas or, in
its most extreme form, paranoid delusions.
Bob Grumman
> > > So you ridiculous grumpy old men are quite satisfied with brushing all
> > > Shakespeare problems under the carpet by stamping any opponent as
> > > mentally unfit or unreliable or incompetent etc.,
> >
> > How is it that almost every time any sane person criticizes the mental
> > processes of ONE Shakespeare-rejector to that Shakespeare--rejector, the
> > Shakespeare-rejector almost always claims that the sane person is
> > criticizing EVERYONE who disagrees with him?
> >
> > --Bob G.
>
>
> As someone with an interest in psychology, Bob, you
> should know: the propensity to overgeneralize from
> limited information. It's one of the cognitive quirks
> essential for the maintenance of fixed ideas or, in
> its most extreme form, paranoid delusions.
>
I know, I know, but still!!
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<6rBt9.15068$Z9....@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > Peter Groves wrote:
> > > The real mystery is how someone who is demonstrably so
> > > cognitively dysfunctional could imagine that they could have anything of
> > > interest to contribute to a scholarly discussion.
> >
> > Kruger-Dunning syndrome.
> >
> > http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
> >
> > Unskilled and Unaware of It:
> > How Difficulties in Recognizing
> > One's Own Incompetence Lead to
> > Inflated Self-Assessments
> >
> > Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
> > December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
>
>
> So you ridiculous grumpy old men are quite satisfied with brushing all
> Shakespeare problems under the carpet by stamping any opponent as
> mentally unfit or unreliable or incompetent etc.
Don't let the bastards get you down, Laila.
I have little sympathy with the Derbyite position,
but I have far less with the low-grade ad-hominen
attacks from the likes of Groves or Kennedy.
Someone who quotes from the likes of "Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology" as though it
had a reasonable academic reputation, hasn't
got a clue in any case. Although that was obvious
from their acceptance of this 'scientific' paper.
> thus negating the
> existence of any Shakespeare problem, such as his lack of any
> university education (although the Shakespeare canon betrays at least
> considerable Cambridge experience), the fact of his daughters being
> totally uneducated (the daughters of the established greatest bard of
> the English language) and so forth. Pardon me, but you are just making
> yourselves ridiculous.
Too true. As the weakness of the Stratfordian
position becomes more apparent to more
people (outside the profession, of course)
the personal attacks will get more vicious.
Expect the worst from those shits.
Paul.
Bob Grumman
> Personality and Social Psychology" as though it
> had a reasonable academic reputation, hasn't
> got a clue in any case. Although that was obvious
> from their acceptance of this 'scientific' paper.
Ah, Paul, now you WANT some authority with "a reasonable academic
reputation." It's different with sonnet-interpretation, though. I myself
don't think much of the paper involved but it certainly accurately pinpoints
a significant attribute of incompetents such as yourself: a near-complete
absence of a faculty for self-criticism. You, in fact, can't even state
what means you would use to check your reliability as a Universal Knower
beyond the rule, "If I think I'm right, I am."
In other words, you're a full-blown rigidnik. I know you'll that it is I
who is the full-blown rigidnik, but I, unlike you and other genuine
rigidniks, believe that to be able to claim one is right on something, one
must go to some judge or panel of judges other than oneself such as one's
peers in one's field.
As for Laila, she's not a rigidnik, just an airhead--or, in my system, a
milyoop.
--Bob G.
John W. Kennedy
> So you ridiculous grumpy old men are quite satisfied with brushing all
> Shakespeare problems under the carpet by stamping any opponent as
> mentally unfit or unreliable or incompetent etc.,
No, we demonstrate it. In your case, your pathetic belief that
you are really a member of the British aristocracy is sufficient
to establish that you are hopelessly deluded.
> thus negating the
> existence of any Shakespeare problem, such as his lack of any
> university education (although the Shakespeare canon betrays at least
> considerable Cambridge experience),
That's a lie.
> the fact of his daughters being
> totally uneducated (the daughters of the established greatest bard of
> the English language)
And another lie.
> and so forth. Pardon me, but you are just making
> yourselves ridiculous.
Perhaps we are, in that we even bother to answer you. But some
of us have a particular variety of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder:
whenever we see lies or nonsense, we just can't feel satisfied
until we speak up with the truth.
Laila Roth
I didn't have you in mind at all, Bob. If you feel hit it's not my
fault. I was addressing "grumpy old men" without imagining you to be
one of them at all!
No hard feelings! (I hope...)
Laila Roth, Derbyite
Bob Grumman
all
> > > > > Shakespeare problems under the carpet by stamping any opponent as
> > > > > mentally unfit or unreliable or incompetent etc.,
> > > >
> > > > How is it that almost every time any sane person criticizes the
mental
> > > > processes of ONE Shakespeare-rejector to that Shakespeare--rejector,
the
> > > > Shakespeare-rejector almost always claims that the sane person is
> > > > criticizing EVERYONE who disagrees with him?
> > > >
> > > > --Bob G.
> > >
> > >
> > > As someone with an interest in psychology, Bob, you
> > > should know: the propensity to overgeneralize from
> > > limited information. It's one of the cognitive quirks
> > > essential for the maintenance of fixed ideas or, in
> > > its most extreme form, paranoid delusions.
> > >
> >
> > I know, I know, but still!!
> >
> > --Bob G.
> I didn't have you in mind at all, Bob. If you feel hit it's not my
> fault. I was addressing "grumpy old men" without imagining you to be
> one of them at all!
I'm grumpier and older than the ones you seem to have been replying to,
Laila.
> No hard feelings! (I hope...)
>
> Laila Roth, Derbyite
I don't have hard feelings for anyone except Richard Kennedy, and he seems
to have been apprehended again and tucked away. But it's a little
disconcerting to find out I may not be the worst of the worst to every
anti-Stratfordian here at HLAS. I try so hard to be!
--Bob G.
Laila Roth
Be comforted! Records don't exist except to be beaten. But whatever do
you have against that funniest HLAS clown R. Kennedy? To me he is the
only one here with a highly developed sense of humour, besides that I
like his treatment of everyone like children. The only ones with some
justified sense of harm felt against him would be the Oxfordians,
since he never tires of harassing his own fellow Oxfordians.
I recommend you to go Derbyite. That's much safer than all the rest of
the poor scandalized Shakespeare candidate gang, Oxford being depicted
as an alcoholic, Marlowe and Bacon as homosexuals, while the most
liable ones to humiliation are of course you Stratfordians, since that
illiterate rustic... well, you know.
Laila Roth, Derbyite - the only true and safe alternative!
Bob Grumman
> you have against that funniest HLAS clown R. Kennedy?
He's a liar. And he used to re-post his lies over and over and over again.
>To me he is the
> only one here with a highly developed sense of humour
Sorry Laila, but that may be the looniest thing you've said yet. On the
other hand, maybe you just can't appreciate jokes directed against unreason.
besides that I
> like his treatment of everyone like children. The only ones with some
> justified sense of harm felt against him would be the Oxfordians,
> since he never tires of harassing his own fellow Oxfordians.
I missed that.
> I recommend you to go Derbyite. That's much safer than all the rest of
> the poor scandalized Shakespeare candidate gang, Oxford being depicted
> as an alcoholic, Marlowe and Bacon as homosexuals, while the most
> liable ones to humiliation are of course you Stratfordians, since that
> illiterate rustic... well, you know.
>
> Laila Roth, Derbyite - the only true and safe alternative!
Derby is only safe because he lacks the battalions the others have. If he
ever gets any real support, all kinds of bad things will come out about him.
--Bob G.
Laila Roth
Clearly you are wrong here. So far nothing bad has come out about him,
except his maniacal jealousy of his wife, which wasn't any worse than
Othello's. None other of the candidates exposed a similar jealousy of
their wives if they had any, (only Oxford and Shakspere were married
among them, and Bacon with a girl,) yet his torment is so deep so as
to only have been possibly personally felt by the author himself, - so
Othello's rage could ony have been - Derby's.
Laila Roth, Derbyite
Alan Jones
[...]
> Clearly you are wrong here. So far nothing bad has come out about [Derby],
> except his maniacal jealousy of his wife, which wasn't any worse than
> Othello's.
It could hardly have been worse, could it?
> None other of the candidates exposed a similar jealousy of
> their wives if they had any, (only Oxford and Shakspere were married
> among them, and Bacon with a girl,) yet his torment is so deep so as
> to only have been possibly personally felt by the author himself, - so
> Othello's rage could ony have been - Derby's.
I suppose he was also as viciously ambitious as Richard III, as
self-important and as easily gulled as Malvolio, as ... well, you will take
my point. Why assume that characters in plays reflect their authors'
personalities? And why pick on Othello rather than Iago or Cassio?
Alan Jones
Bob Grumman
> except his maniacal jealousy of his wife, which wasn't any worse than
> Othello's. None other of the candidates exposed a similar jealousy of
> their wives if they had any, (only Oxford and Shakspere were married
> among them, and Bacon with a girl,) yet his torment is so deep so as
> to only have been possibly personally felt by the author himself,
Laila, do you really know that little about writers? Writers have this
thing called imagination. And they are human. The latter allows them to
experience all human emotions, including jealousy. The former allows them
to imagine how having some passion they have to a minor degree would affect
them if they had it to an extreme degree. Their ability to write allows
them to make you believe in what they write about it.
- so
> Othello's rage could ony have been - Derby's.
> Laila Roth, Derbyite
Plus, just because you don't know Shakespeare ever suffered great jealousy,
doesn't mean he didn't. And it would seem Oxford did. He got terribly
upset about his wife's first kid, which he thought fathered by someone other
than he.
Anyway, you missed my point, which is that if Derby got as much as a
following as Oxford or Bacon or Marlowe, people would find out bad things
about him or make them up, just the way they do about Oxford, Bacon, Marlowe
and Shakespeare.
--Bob G.
Laila Roth
> > Clearly you are wrong here. So far nothing bad has come out about him,
> > except his maniacal jealousy of his wife, which wasn't any worse than
> > Othello's. None other of the candidates exposed a similar jealousy of
> > their wives if they had any, (only Oxford and Shakspere were married
> > among them, and Bacon with a girl,) yet his torment is so deep so as
> > to only have been possibly personally felt by the author himself,
>
> Laila, do you really know that little about writers? Writers have this
> thing called imagination. And they are human. The latter allows them to
> experience all human emotions, including jealousy. The former allows them
> to imagine how having some passion they have to a minor degree would affect
> them if they had it to an extreme degree. Their ability to write allows
> them to make you believe in what they write about it.
>
According to my experience, writers have nothing to write about except
their own experience. Writers who have nothing to build on except
their imagination seldom produce anything of lasting value, take for
example all the billions of nonsensical science fiction writers who
keep insisting on impossible ridiculous monsters and ETs with five
legs and seven eyes and six fingers and so on - it was something else
with Baron Munchausen, who at least was funny.
Othello is a singular case of its own - there is really nothing like
it in world literature. Othello is modelled on an Italian short
story, which doesn't give the Othello character at all - in the story,
he is just as bloody a crook as Iago.
Othello's volcanic emotions are (together with Lear's) the greatest
emotional surges found antywhere in Shakespeare. They must have been
personally experienced. They are so realistic as to psychologically
almost prove or at least convince anyone that those feelings actually
were felt for real and couldn't have been felt by anyone else than the
author, who must have committed the same mistakes as Othello did:
imagining his wife to be unfaithful. Derby did just that.
Also, the Othello character is repeated in Shakespeare, as we meet the
same volcanically dark and infernal feelings in Leontes in "A Winter's
Tale". He is just a copy of Othello, only older and modified: the fury
is tempered by the slower temperament of age. But the character of the
feelings is exactly the same and speak the same language of being
intensely and personally felt by the author himself, who is all too
familiar with them to be able to observe them from some distance. You
can't create that character by just observing others. Such feelings
are not seen, and you can't feel what others feel, unless your empathy
is exceptional.
Oxford fits well into the picture, since Derby was his son-in-law and
probably completed a number of Oxford's unfinished plays or simply
edited or rewrote them. As you all know, Oxford died too early to be
able to finish or even write the plays produced during the last eight
Shakespeare years.
There is no documentation of or almost even no possibility for Bacon,
Shakspere or Marlowe to have had access to the same familiarity with
such feelings.
> - so
> > Othello's rage could ony have been - Derby's.
>
> > Laila Roth, Derbyite
>
> Plus, just because you don't know Shakespeare ever suffered great jealousy,
> doesn't mean he didn't. And it would seem Oxford did. He got terribly
> upset about his wife's first kid, which he thought fathered by someone other
> than he.
>
> Anyway, you missed my point, which is that if Derby got as much as a
> following as Oxford or Bacon or Marlowe, people would find out bad things
> about him or make them up, just the way they do about Oxford, Bacon, Marlowe
> and Shakespeare.
>
> --Bob G.
You are talking about imagining things about the candidates. I am
sticking to facts and psychological logic and reality.
Laila Roth, Derbyite
Neil Brennen
> > thing called imagination. And they are human. The latter allows them
to
> > experience all human emotions, including jealousy. The former allows
them
> > to imagine how having some passion they have to a minor degree would
affect
> > them if they had it to an extreme degree. Their ability to write allows
> > them to make you believe in what they write about it.
>
> According to my experience, writers have nothing to write about except
> their own experience.
What is this "experience" that gives you such an insight into the creative
process?
Writers who have nothing to build on except
> their imagination seldom produce anything of lasting value, take for
> example all the billions of nonsensical science fiction writers who
> keep insisting on impossible ridiculous monsters and ETs with five
> legs and seven eyes and six fingers and so on - it was something else
> with Baron Munchausen, who at least was funny.
Hmm, Ms. Bosh, are you saying "The Red Badge of Courage" is not of lasting
value because Stephen Crane was not a US Civil War veteran?
Are you saying that "Of Mice and Men" is not of lasting value because John
Steinbeck, as far as we know, never murdered a semi-retarded farm hand?
Are you saying "Candide" is not of lasting value because Voltaire, as far as
we know, never traveled to the New World in search of Eldorado?
Are you saying "Dr. Faustus" is not of lasting value because Marlowe, as far
as we are aware, never sold his soul?
Or are you just publicly admitting you are completely clueless when it comes
to a discussion of writing?
(Snip more Lalia Bosh cluelessness)
> > Plus, just because you don't know Shakespeare ever suffered great
jealousy,
> > doesn't mean he didn't. And it would seem Oxford did. He got terribly
> > upset about his wife's first kid, which he thought fathered by someone
other
> > than he.
> >
> > Anyway, you missed my point, which is that if Derby got as much as a
> > following as Oxford or Bacon or Marlowe, people would find out bad
things
> > about him or make them up, just the way they do about Oxford, Bacon,
Marlowe
> > and Shakespeare.
> >
> > --Bob G.
>
> You are talking about imagining things about the candidates. I am
> sticking to facts and psychological logic and reality.
We wish you would stick to your medication schedule.
Bob Grumman
> > thing called imagination. And they are human. The latter allows them
to
> > experience all human emotions, including jealousy. The former allows
them
> > to imagine how having some passion they have to a minor degree would
affect
> > them if they had it to an extreme degree. Their ability to write allows
> > them to make you believe in what they write about it.
> >
>
> According to my experience, writers have nothing to write about except
> their own experience. Writers who have nothing to build on except
> their imagination seldom produce anything of lasting value,
Oh, there are only two kinds of writers: those with experience, and those
with nothing but imagination?
I'm afraid I have to say that you are really nuts, Laila.
--Bob G.
Lorenzo4344
>From: "Neil Brennen" chessne...@mindspring.com
>Date: 11/2/2002
>Are you saying that "Of Mice and Men" is not of lasting value because John
Steinbeck, as far as we know, never murdered a semi-retarded farm hand?
I'd say, Laila's position is way off the wall, but's a bad example, this, Neil.
John was a Salinas Valley field hand, ran with field hands, worked on the same
ranch as George and Lennie, used the same bunkhouse, same bar, same whorehouse,
frequented exactly the same various locations in the book, including the spot
on the river where Lennie's prototype was killed in the 30's, and (more) often
(than not) "imagined" a great story out of then current events and personal
experience. But you are right - I don't believe he ever murdered a
semi-retarded farm hand.
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
Neil Brennen
"Lorenzo4344" <loren...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021103011652...@mb-fw.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Basic Anti-Stratfordianism - More Stupidity from Lalia Bosh
> >From: "Neil Brennen" chessne...@mindspring.com
> >Date: 11/2/2002
>
> >Are you saying that "Of Mice and Men" is not of lasting value because
John
> Steinbeck, as far as we know, never murdered a semi-retarded farm hand?
>
> I'd say, Laila's position is way off the wall, but's a bad example, this,
Neil.
Dante's "Inferno" was a better example, but Webb got it in before me.
> John was a Salinas Valley field hand, ran with field hands, worked on the
same
> ranch as George and Lennie, used the same bunkhouse, same bar, same
whorehouse,
> frequented exactly the same various locations in the book, including the
spot
> on the river where Lennie's prototype was killed in the 30's, and (more)
often
> (than not) "imagined" a great story out of then current events and
personal
> experience.
Lalia Bosh's claim is that only Derby had the "emotional" and
"psychological" experience to write Othello, not that Derby was the only
person to visit the locale of the drama. My comparison still holds.
But you are right - I don't believe he ever murdered a
> semi-retarded farm hand.
BTW, what is your source for the claims about Steinbeck basing "Of Mice and
Men" on a true case, and visiting the crime scene, same bunkhouse, etc? I
don't recall that from the Steinbeck biographies I've read. Are you perhaps
thinking of "The Grapes of Wrath" instead? Steinbeck did visit the labor
camps as part of his research for that book.
Lorenzo4344
From: "Neil Brennen" chessne...@mindspring.com
Date: 11/2/2002
>Lalia Bosh's claim is that only Derby had the "emotional" and
>"psychological" experience to write Othello, not that Derby was the only
>person to visit the locale of the drama. My comparison still holds.
Laila's claim seems to be that personal experience was the only way to go for
WS, and your exaggerated examples of how that ain't necessarily so seems like
overkill. Jealousy is so commonplace that her gotta-be-Derby thing is silly,
sure. My claim is that "Write what you know," is hardly a rarely used
methodology. Not so silly.
>BTW, what is your source for the claims about Steinbeck basing "Of Mice and
>Men" on a true case, and visiting the crime scene, same bunkhouse, etc? I
>don't recall that from the Steinbeck biographies I've read. Are you perhaps
>thinking of "The Grapes of Wrath" instead? Steinbeck did visit the labor
>camps as part of his research for that book.
He didn't just visit George and Lennie's ranch, he worked there long before
either of those books were written. Spreckels #2, 'twas called, I think, maybe
3 or 4, near Soledad/Greenfield. I've read most of them and Jackson Benson's is
far by the the best bio, and the source of most of the info. It's not a secret.
Also, his pal, Bruce Arris wrote a book, the name of which escapes me, about
some of their rambles, including a stop at the scene of the crime. My point is
that Steinbeck is one of the sliciest of life writers out there - that they
exist in great number. In his case you could indeed draw a pretty clear idea of
the author's background based on subjective, non-scholarshiply common sense
Looneyness.
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
Art Neuendorffer
>>According to my experience, writers have nothing to write about except
>>their own experience.
>
David L. Webb wrote:
> What a preposterous assertion! Do you think that
> Dante actually had a guided tour of hell?
Jules Verne also to a journey to the centre of the earth and found
something quite different than Dante. How did the different life
experiences of Verne & Dante affect their vision of the earth's centre?
How did the similar life experiences of Shake-speare & Castiglione
affect their vision of court life?
Art Neuendorffer
Neil Brennen
> Subject: Re: Basic Anti-Stratfordianism - More Stupidity from Lalia Bosh
> From: "Neil Brennen" chessne...@mindspring.com
> Date: 11/2/2002
>
> >Lalia Bosh's claim is that only Derby had the "emotional" and
> >"psychological" experience to write Othello, not that Derby was the only
> >person to visit the locale of the drama. My comparison still holds.
>
> Laila's claim seems to be that personal experience was the only way to go
for
> WS, and your exaggerated examples of how that ain't necessarily so seems
like
> overkill.
I don't think they are any more exaggerated than her statement, which was
the point.
Jealousy is so commonplace that her gotta-be-Derby thing is silly,
> sure.
Agreed.
>My claim is that "Write what you know," is hardly a rarely used
> methodology. Not so silly.
I wasn't arguing with your claims, merely pointing out the ridiculousness of
hers.
> >BTW, what is your source for the claims about Steinbeck basing "Of Mice
and
> >Men" on a true case, and visiting the crime scene, same bunkhouse, etc? I
> >don't recall that from the Steinbeck biographies I've read. Are you
perhaps
> >thinking of "The Grapes of Wrath" instead? Steinbeck did visit the labor
> >camps as part of his research for that book.
> He didn't just visit George and Lennie's ranch, he worked there long
before
> either of those books were written. Spreckels #2, 'twas called, I think,
maybe
> 3 or 4, near Soledad/Greenfield. I've read most of them and Jackson
Benson's is
> far by the the best bio, and the source of most of the info. It's not a
secret.
I've read Benson's book, and I don't recall it being stated that "Of Mice
and Men" was based on a specific incident at a specific camp, which is what
you are claiming. (Could you quote "chapter and verse" from Benson's book?)
I am aware of Steinbeck's background as a farm hand years before he began to
write the book.
> Also, his pal, Bruce Arris wrote a book, the name of which escapes me,
about
> some of their rambles, including a stop at the scene of the crime.
I haven't read the Arris book, but I would suspect Benson would have quoted
it in his biography of Steinbeck if he considered it reliable.
My point is
> that Steinbeck is one of the sliciest of life writers out there - that
they
> exist in great number. In his case you could indeed draw a pretty clear
idea of
> the author's background based on subjective, non-scholarshiply common
sense
> Looneyness.
No, you can only draw the parallels that MAY exist between his life and his
writing because we know what that life is. There are enough writers who do
not fit this Looney mold to make the Looney model of attempting to determine
authorship from a reading of the works unworkable.
Alena/S
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Peter Groves wrote:
>
> It generally takes some level of competence to recognize incompetence.
>
> There is a relevant online article in Journal of Personality and Social
> Psychology:
>
> _Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
> Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments_
>
> Justin Kruger and David Dunning
> Department of Psychology
> Cornell University
>
> Abstract
> People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many
> social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this
> overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these
> domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous
> conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them
> of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors
> found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor,
> grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and
> ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they
> estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this
> miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to
> distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of
> participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped
> them recognize the limitations of their abilities.
>
> The full paper is at: http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
>
> I think the real mystery has to do with how we can best get someone(who
> possesses no competence to begin with) to seriously consider the
> possibility that they are incompetent.
>
>
> Rob
Thanks for posting this. More people should read it. I was going to
ask you why there are some people who do the exact opposite -
underestimate their abilities, but the article explained that. Thank
you so much.
Lorenzo4344
>From: "Neil Brennen" chessne...@mindspring.com
>I've read Benson's book, and I don't recall it being stated that "Of Mice
>and Men" was based on a specific incident at a specific camp, which is what
>you are claiming. (Could you quote "chapter and verse" from Benson's book?)
>I am aware of Steinbeck's background as a farm hand years before he began to
>write the book.
Well, what I am claiming is that Steinbeck incorporated a ranch upon which he
worked into the story. That he incorporated an acquaintance with many George
and Lennie type itinerants. That he incorporated loci he knew first hand. That
he spun a great yarn out of contemporary cloth. I don't know how closely he
followed the details of the actual killing, but he follows his own tracks
really well. I will track down the specifics if you REALLY want me to, but I
would rather stay home and read "Measure For Measure".
>> Also, his pal, Bruce Arris wrote a book, the name of which escapes me, about
some of their rambles, including a stop at the scene of the crime.
>
>I haven't read the Arris book, but I would suspect Benson would have quoted
>it in his biography of Steinbeck if he considered it reliable.
Not necessarily, if Benson's bio appeared prior to Arris' book. I'll check if
you REALLY want me too. These two knew each other quite well, by the by, but
that doesn't mean Bruce ever mentioned that particular incident to Benson, or
if he did, that Benson found it noteworthy. Bruce's reliabilty would not be an
issue.
>My point is
>> that Steinbeck is one of the sliciest of life writers out there - that
>they
>> exist in great number. In his case you could indeed draw a pretty clear
>idea of
>> the author's background based on subjective, non-scholarshiply common
>sense
>> Looneyness.
>
>No, you can only draw the parallels that MAY exist between his life and his
>writing because we know what that life is. There are enough writers who do
>not fit this Looney mold to make the Looney model of attempting to determine
>authorship from a reading of the works unworkable.
>
Often so. There are also enough (only takes one) who do fit the mold to make
the subjective process viable. Even discounting "East Of Eden" in which he uses
half the narrative to relate his family's history and includes his own
appearance as a character, a reader who knew zip about Steinbeck, not even so
much as his name, could well enough discern from his "fiction" that he was from
the central California coast, that he was a 20th century man, was very well
read, that he could work on cars, knew a lot about frognapping, farming and
farmers, street people, and immigrant bread-basketeers, on, on. He could spot
political and philosophical propensities, know that he was interested in
ecology, human dignity, "communistic" labor reform, spent time in Mexico and
Europe - certainly that he was a slice of life kinda writer. Knowing that, the
reader could also SUPPOSE that he maybe once had a red pony who died of the
strangles, as he did, or that he maybe knew a marine biologist called "Doc" on
Cannery Row, as he did, and so forth, which, if inadmissable notions per
scholarship, are still not absurd notions.
Now, Neil, I didn't make this mold, Steinbeck did. In researching such
perceived info, it wouldn't take long for the newbie reader to find the writer
whose known bio, replete with loads of confirmed suppositions, fills the bill.
One call to any librarian ought to do it. To find the man to match his own
criteria, Looney didn't have it so easy.
I don't think we need a notarized affidavit from his publisher to realize that
regardless of which specific details are assignable to his life, Steinbeck was
drawing hugely from the world around him, and injecting that world into his
work. The same holds, as I see it, for Shake-speare.
Good talking with you, though. Antipodally yours:
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
Neil Brennen
> >Subject: Re: Basic Anti-Stratfordianism - More Stupidity from Lalia Bosh
> >From: "Neil Brennen" chessne...@mindspring.com
> >Date: 11/3/2002
>
> >I've read Benson's book, and I don't recall it being stated that "Of Mice
> >and Men" was based on a specific incident at a specific camp, which is
what
> >you are claiming. (Could you quote "chapter and verse" from Benson's
book?)
> >I am aware of Steinbeck's background as a farm hand years before he began
to
> >write the book.
>
> Well, what I am claiming is that Steinbeck incorporated a ranch upon which
he
> worked into the story. That he incorporated an acquaintance with many
George
> and Lennie type itinerants. That he incorporated loci he knew first hand.
That
> he spun a great yarn out of contemporary cloth. I don't know how closely
he
> followed the details of the actual killing, but he follows his own tracks
> really well. I will track down the specifics if you REALLY want me to, but
I
> would rather stay home and read "Measure For Measure".
So in other words, you are backing off your claim, which was in essence that
"Of Mice and Men" was a Steinbeckian "In Cold Blood". Typical.
(Snip discussion of Arris book, and if Arris' book was published after
Benson's Steinbeck biography.)
> >My point is
> >> that Steinbeck is one of the sliciest of life writers out there - that
> >they
> >> exist in great number. In his case you could indeed draw a pretty clear
> >idea of
> >> the author's background based on subjective, non-scholarshiply common
> >sense
> >> Looneyness.
> >
> >No, you can only draw the parallels that MAY exist between his life and
his
> >writing because we know what that life is. There are enough writers who
do
> >not fit this Looney mold to make the Looney model of attempting to
determine
> >authorship from a reading of the works unworkable.
>
> Often so.
Agreed.
>There are also enough (only takes one) who do fit the mold to make
> the subjective process viable.
Again, that's only if you can compare the author's life with the works.
Alone, it's unworkable as a test of authorship.
Yes, but with Shakespeare, you don't have the sort of documentation of his
life that Steinbeck does to compare with the plays. Remove the details of
Steinbeck's life that Benson used to fill his 800 pages. Can you, with
confidence, claim you can reconstruct his biography just from Steinbeck's
novels and short stories? You seem to be claiming you can do just that.
And now, go a step further, and remove Steinbeck's name from the novels and
short stories, just as anti-Shakespeareans regularly do for Shakespeare.
Discount contemporary references to Steinbeck, such as James Thurber's
notorious review of "The Moon is Down", by stating they were duped, mocking
the author, or part of the conspiracy. Assign the Steinbeck works to another
author, say Fitzgerald, or dos Passos, and begin to draw parallels to prove
your authorship case.
After all, Fitzgerald was a great mixer with people, and knew the ways of
the wealthy, and Steinbeck from Salinas (an undistinguished little farm
town) could hardly have written "Winter of our Discontent" without being a
monied East Coast person. No doubt F. Scott gave pearls to Zelda, and so we
can establish his authorship of "The Pearl". Yes, Fitzgerald died too early
for the "Steinback" canon, but his death was faked.....
> Good talking with you, though. Antipodally yours:
At the moment, you are my favorite anti-Shakespearean. As always, I enjoy
the conversation.
John W. Kennedy
> What is this "experience" that gives you such an insight into the creative
> process?
Her real parents (the Duke of Earl and Barbara Cartland) told
her all about it in a dream.
John W. Kennedy
> lail...@yahoo.co.uk (Laila Roth) wrote:
>> According to my experience, writers have nothing to write about except
>> their own experience.
> What a preposterous assertion! Do you think that Dante actually had
> a guided tour of hell?
And Purgatory and Heaven, if you please. (This message brought
to you by the League of Dantean Correctors.)
Was Kazuo Koike ever a single father supporting himself and a
toddler by working as a mercenary assassin?
Was Neil Gaiman ever the god of dreams?
Was C. S. Lewis ever a devil?
Was Samuel Richardson ever a maidservant, an heiress,
or a baronet?
Was Gogol ever a nose?
>>take for
>>example all the billions of nonsensical science fiction writers who
>>keep insisting on impossible ridiculous monsters and ETs with five
>>legs and seven eyes and six fingers and so on - it was something else
>>with Baron Munchausen, who at least was funny.
> How much science fiction have you actually *read*?
Damn little, obviously -- and astonishingly selective at that.
It is one of the most frequent complaints within the field
that most aliens are all too human.
But, buried in the inaccuracy of her complaint, she makes a
much more fundamental error. For what, after all, is _wrong_
with non-humanoid aliens? Few scientists would now suppose
that alien life is improbable. Experiments have demonstrated
that an environment like the primitive Earth produces amino
acids, etc., by natural processes within a matter of days,
and we now know that planetary formation, too, is common.
So what is left? C. S. Lewis said it years ago:
To us it is apparent that the books [the alliterate] like are
full of impossibilities. They have no objection to
monstrous psychology and preposterous coincidence.
But they demand rigorously an observance of such
natural laws as they know and a general ordinariness;
the clothes, gadgets, food, houses, occupations, and
tone of the everyday world. This is, no doubt, partly
due to the extreme inertia of their imaginations.
They can render real to themselves only what they
have read of a thousand times and seen a hundred
times before. But there is a deeper reason [that
they dislike the fantastic in literature].
Though they do not mistake their castle-building
for reality, they want to feel that it might be. The
woman reader does not believe that all eyes follow
her, as they follow the heroine of the book; but she
wants to feel that, given more money, and therefore
better dresses, jewels, cosmetics, and opportunities,
they might. The man does not believe that he is rich
and socially successful; but if only he won a sweep-
stake, if only fortunes could be made without
talent, he might become so. He knows the day-
dream is unrealised; he demands that it should be,
in principle, realisable. That is why the slightest
hint of the admittedly impossible ruins his pleasure.
A story which introduces the marvellous, the fan-
tastic, says to him by implication 'I am merely a
work of art. You must take me as such -- must enjoy
me for my suggestions, my beauty, my irony, my
construction, and so forth. There is no question of
anything like this happening to you in the real
world.' After that, reading -- his sort of reading --
becomes pointless. Unless he can feel 'This might
-- who knows? -- this might one day happen to me',
the whole purpose for which he reads is frustrated.
It is, therefore, an absolute rule: the more com-
pletely a man's reading is a form of egoistic
castle-building, the more he will demand a certain
superficial realism, and the less he will like the fan-
tastic. He wishes to be deceived, at least momentarily,
and nothing can deceive unless it bears a plausible
resemblance to reality. Disinterested castle-build-
ing may dream of nectar and ambrosia, of fairy
bread and honey dew; the egoistic sort dreams
rather of bacon and eggs or steak.
-- "An Experiment in Criticism"
Lewis wrote in 1961. One might point at the current deluge of
dreadful popular SF as an indication that Lewis had it wrong,
but I do not think he did; people are just willing to believe
more arrant nonsense than 40 years ago.
What else is Laila but a vulgar little shopgirl with delusions?
> Huh? Shakespeare could not have felt betrayed by a lover? Why on
> earth not? Are the middle classes immune to emotions such as love and
> jealousy?
I'm sure that Laila, who was abandoned as a child by her titled
parents (but they had a _very_ good reason, and they'll explain
it all when they come back for her), will tell you all about the
dullness and lack of true spiritual life among the bourgeoisie.
After all, it was only because of her own natural superiority to
her oh-so-non-U "parents" that she was able to deduce her true
origins.
Neil Brennen
> Neil Brennen wrote:
> > What is this "experience" that gives you such an insight into the
creative
> > process?
>
> Her real parents (the Duke of Earl and Barbara Cartland) told
> her all about it in a dream.
LOL!
Laila Roth
> "Laila Roth" <lail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:fb346be4.02110...@posting.google.com...
> > "Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
> news:<aq0lb...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
> > > Laila, do you really know that little about writers? Writers have this
> > > thing called imagination. And they are human. The latter allows them
> to
> > > experience all human emotions, including jealousy. The former allows
> them
> > > to imagine how having some passion they have to a minor degree would
> affect
> > > them if they had it to an extreme degree. Their ability to write allows
> > > them to make you believe in what they write about it.
> >
> > According to my experience, writers have nothing to write about except
> > their own experience.
>
> What is this "experience" that gives you such an insight into the creative
> process?
>
Something very natural and obvious that apparently you don't have.
> Writers who have nothing to build on except
> > their imagination seldom produce anything of lasting value, take for
> > example all the billions of nonsensical science fiction writers who
> > keep insisting on impossible ridiculous monsters and ETs with five
> > legs and seven eyes and six fingers and so on - it was something else
> > with Baron Munchausen, who at least was funny.
>
> Hmm, Ms. Bosh, are you saying "The Red Badge of Courage" is not of lasting
> value because Stephen Crane was not a US Civil War veteran?
>
No, I am not, but Stephen had a very keen sense of psychology and
certainly must have known some war veterans to be able to copy their
experience of war.
> Are you saying that "Of Mice and Men" is not of lasting value because John
> Steinbeck, as far as we know, never murdered a semi-retarded farm hand?
>
No, I am not, but Steinbeck knew lots of such people, so it was easy
for him to write about such characters and their psychology.
> Are you saying "Candide" is not of lasting value because Voltaire, as far as
> we know, never traveled to the New World in search of Eldorado?
>
No, I am not, but "Candide" is nothing but a world satire, for which
to write you don't need more experience than of the world at large.
> Are you saying "Dr. Faustus" is not of lasting value because Marlowe, as far
> as we are aware, never sold his soul?
>
No, I am not, but Marlowe (or whoever wrote that notorious play)
certainly must have had some occult experience.
> Or are you just publicly admitting you are completely clueless when it comes
> to a discussion of writing?
>
I am not admitting anything but just trying to oblige you by answering
your stupid questions.
> (Snip more Lalia Bosh cluelessness)
>
> > > Plus, just because you don't know Shakespeare ever suffered great
> jealousy,
> > > doesn't mean he didn't. And it would seem Oxford did. He got terribly
> > > upset about his wife's first kid, which he thought fathered by someone
> other
> > > than he.
> > >
> > > Anyway, you missed my point, which is that if Derby got as much as a
> > > following as Oxford or Bacon or Marlowe, people would find out bad
> things
> > > about him or make them up, just the way they do about Oxford, Bacon,
> Marlowe
> > > and Shakespeare.
> > >
> > > --Bob G.
> >
> > You are talking about imagining things about the candidates. I am
> > sticking to facts and psychological logic and reality.
>
> We wish you would stick to your medication schedule.
I have no medication schedule. Perhaps you should stick to yours,
since apparently you speak of some experience of such things but have
forgotten to mind your own schedule since you think others have
neglected what concerns only you.
Laila Roth, Derbyite
Laila Roth
> David L. Webb wrote:
> > lail...@yahoo.co.uk (Laila Roth) wrote:
> >> According to my experience, writers have nothing to write about except
> >> their own experience.
>
> > What a preposterous assertion! Do you think that Dante actually had
> > a guided tour of hell?
>
> And Purgatory and Heaven, if you please. (This message brought
> to you by the League of Dantean Correctors.)
>
> Was Kazuo Koike ever a single father supporting himself and a
> toddler by working as a mercenary assassin?
>
> Was Neil Gaiman ever the god of dreams?
>
> Was C. S. Lewis ever a devil?
>
> Was Samuel Richardson ever a maidservant, an heiress,
> or a baronet?
>
> Was Gogol ever a nose?
>
> >>take for
> >>example all the billions of nonsensical science fiction writers who
> >>keep insisting on impossible ridiculous monsters and ETs with five
> >>legs and seven eyes and six fingers and so on - it was something else
> >>with Baron Munchausen, who at least was funny.
>
> > How much science fiction have you actually *read*?
I must confess, I am not an expert on science fiction, since I always
found that genre the most inhuman and therefore despicable of all. The
SF novels of H.G.Wells for exampe are all revolting. Jules Verne at
least is human, and so is Dante - Dante relies for his visions on some
millennium of traditions in that field, which is obvious from what he
writes: he relies entirely on the writings of others, while he makes
his own deductions from them.
Fortunately there is also qualified Science Fiction. One of the best
novels in the field (and of this century) is Anthony Burgess' "The End
of the World News", which however at the same time contains realistic
biographies of Freud and Trotsky - so it's not all Science Fiction. He
just completes the fugal novel with an effective SF finale.
But all this has nothing to do with our topic. You are all
deliberately misunderstanding me and failing to grasp the special
uniqueness that I pointed out of characters like Othello and Lear,
which for their unfathomable sensitivity must have something
autobiographical about them.
Laila Roth, Derbyite.
Neil Brennen
"Laila Roth" <lail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fb346be4.02110...@posting.google.com...
> "Neil Brennen" <chessne...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<aq1q7k$3l2$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > > their own experience.
> >
> > What is this "experience" that gives you such an insight into the
creative
> > process?
>
> Something very natural and obvious that apparently you don't have.
Care to disclose the secret?
>
> > Writers who have nothing to build on except
> > > their imagination seldom produce anything of lasting value, take for
> > > example all the billions of nonsensical science fiction writers who
> > > keep insisting on impossible ridiculous monsters and ETs with five
> > > legs and seven eyes and six fingers and so on - it was something else
> > > with Baron Munchausen, who at least was funny.
> >
> > Hmm, Ms. Bosh, are you saying "The Red Badge of Courage" is not of
lasting
> > value because Stephen Crane was not a US Civil War veteran?
>
> No, I am not, but Stephen had a very keen sense of psychology and
> certainly must have known some war veterans to be able to copy their
> experience of war.
This flies in the face of your description of Othello's emotions as
something that had to be personally experienced. So you will now admit that
someone other than Derby could have written that play?
> > Are you saying that "Of Mice and Men" is not of lasting value because
John
> > Steinbeck, as far as we know, never murdered a semi-retarded farm hand?
>
> No, I am not, but Steinbeck knew lots of such people, so it was easy
> for him to write about such characters and their psychology.
This flies in the face of your description of Othello's emotions as
something that had to be personally experienced. So you will now admit that
someone other than Derby could have written that play?
> > Are you saying "Candide" is not of lasting value because Voltaire, as
far as
> > we know, never traveled to the New World in search of Eldorado?
>
> No, I am not, but "Candide" is nothing but a world satire, for which
> to write you don't need more experience than of the world at large.
??????????????
Could someone explain what Lalia Bosh means here?
> > Are you saying "Dr. Faustus" is not of lasting value because Marlowe, as
far
> > as we are aware, never sold his soul?
>
> No, I am not, but Marlowe (or whoever wrote that notorious play)
> certainly must have had some occult experience.
And he couldn't have gotten it from a book? How do you know Marlowe had
"occult experience"?
> > Or are you just publicly admitting you are completely clueless when it
comes
> > to a discussion of writing?
>
> I am not admitting anything but just trying to oblige you by answering
> your stupid questions.
I'll take that as a "YES".
> > (Snip more Lalia Bosh cluelessness)
> >
> > > > Plus, just because you don't know Shakespeare ever suffered great
> > jealousy,
> > > > doesn't mean he didn't. And it would seem Oxford did. He got
terribly
> > > > upset about his wife's first kid, which he thought fathered by
someone
> > other
> > > > than he.
> > > > Anyway, you missed my point, which is that if Derby got as much as a
> > > > following as Oxford or Bacon or Marlowe, people would find out bad
> > things
> > > > about him or make them up, just the way they do about Oxford, Bacon,
> > Marlowe
> > > > and Shakespeare.
> > > > --Bob G.
> > >
> > > You are talking about imagining things about the candidates. I am
> > > sticking to facts and psychological logic and reality.
> >
> > We wish you would stick to your medication schedule.
>
> I have no medication schedule. Perhaps you should stick to yours,
> since apparently you speak of some experience of such things but have
> forgotten to mind your own schedule since you think others have
> neglected what concerns only you.
Lalia Bosh's version of the verse, "I'm rubber, you're glue, what you say
bounces off of me and sticks to you." You are clearly the most clueless of
the anti-Shakespeareans, and that's going some.
John W. Kennedy
> I must confess, I am not an expert on science fiction, since I always
> found that genre the most inhuman and therefore despicable of all.
If you don't know something, maybe you shouldn't condemn it.
For the rest, suffice it to say that you appear to be very ignorant.
> The
> SF novels of H.G.Wells for exampe are all revolting.
Speaking as a Christian, I find his non-fiction a great deal more
troubling than his fiction, which is rarely any more "revolting"
than, say, Ibsen or Galsworthy.
> Jules Verne at
> least is human, and so is Dante - Dante relies for his visions on some
> millennium of traditions in that field, which is obvious from what he
> writes: he relies entirely on the writings of others, while he makes
> his own deductions from them.
A) It is insane to class Dante as "science fiction".
B) But I'll be kind and assume that when you say "science fiction",
you mean "SF", meaning "speculative fiction". Frankly, it's still
a little weak classifying Dante so. Anyway, to say, "he relies
entirely on the writings of others," of Dante is so far from reality
as to make me suspect you haven't read him, either. The "Inferno"
owes a certain (acknowledged) debt to the "Aeneid", but that's
about all the truth there is to it.
C) But let us assume that Dante falls into the category -- whatever
it is -- that you're discussing. So do "A Midsummer Night's Dream",
"Hamlet", "Macbeth", "Cymbeline", "The Winter's Tale", "The Tempest",
and other works of Shakespeare. So do "The Wizard of Oz", "Harry
Potter", "The Lord of the Rings", and "The Little Mermaid".
> But all this has nothing to do with our topic. You are all
> deliberately misunderstanding me and failing to grasp
Stamping your feet and saying "'Tis, too!" isn't an argument.
A cry of "Murder! Lions! Fascists!" is even less of one.
> the special
> uniqueness that I pointed out of characters like Othello and Lear,
> which for their unfathomable sensitivity must have something
> autobiographical about them.
"Unfathomable sensitivity"? Are you even trying to make sense?
Are you saying that Shakespeare the playwright didn't know his job?
Not to mention that the reasoning is still false. "I can't
understand this character," does not imply, "the character
must be a self-portrait."
Lorenzo4344
>From: "Neil Brennen" chessne...@mindspring.com
This one is long-winded, but what the hell.
Neil Brennen wrote:
> I've read Benson's book, and I don't recall it being stated that "Of Mice and
Men" was based on a specific incident at a specific camp, which is what you are
claiming. (Could you quote "chapter and verse" from Benson's book?) I am aware
of Steinbeck's background as a farm hand years before he began to write the
book.
I wrote:
>> Well, what I am claiming is that Steinbeck incorporated a ranch upon which
he worked into the story. That he incorporated an acquaintance with many George
and Lennie type itinerants. That he incorporated loci he knew first hand. That
he spun a great yarn out of contemporary cloth. I don't know how closely he
followed the details of the actual killing, but he follows his own tracks
really well. I will track down the specifics if you REALLY want me to, but I
would rather stay home and read "Measure For Measure".
>So in other words, you are backing off your claim, which was in essence that
"Of Mice and Men" was a Steinbeckian "In Cold Blood". Typical.
Not at all. I didn't make such a claim. The extent to which he followed details
of the real case are irrelevant to my point. In my original post I said:
"John was a Salinas Valley field hand, ran with field hands, worked on the same
ranch as George and Lennie, used the same bunkhouse, same bar, same whorehouse,
frequented exactly the same various locations in the book, including the spot
on the river where Lennie's prototype was killed in the 30's, and (more) often
(than not) "imagined" a great story out of then current events and personal
experience."
I was just pointing out how, even if John never shot a retarded barley-buckin'
bindlestiff, he freely infused his work with personal experience. It happens. I
was showing how John was a bad example with which to mock Laila's perception of
writing from personal experience. I guess that's what I was claiming.
(Snip discussion of Arris book, and if Arris' book was published after Benson's
Steinbeck biography.)
>>My point is that Steinbeck is one of the sliciest of life writers out there -
that they exist in great number. In his case you could indeed draw a pretty
clear idea of the author's background based on subjective, non-scholarshiply
common sense Looneyness.
>No, you can only draw the parallels that MAY exist between his life and his
writing because we know what that life is. There are enough writers who do not
fit this Looney mold to make the Looney model of attempting to determine
authorship from a reading of the works unworkable.
>> Often so.
> Agreed.
>>There are also enough (only takes one) who do fit the mold to make the
subjective process viable.
> Again, that's only if you can compare the author's life with the works.
Alone, it's unworkable as a test of authorship.
Ah, but we can compare them - in differing degrees. Still, it's the other way
around. I am comparing (traits/characteristics perceived in) the works with the
author's life. There is a dif. If there are authorial characteristics, an
attribution, and no matching bio, we have a Shakspere - an inexplicable seeming
antithesis of what the plays indicate, to me and many another, the author to
be.
Looney made up his 17 point list of traits he would expect to find in the man
who wrote the WS canon, and he found the man to match his mountain. Born of his
own opinions, I don't think his points are untenable, whereas, of course, you
must, for nary a one dovetails with Shakspere's admittedly scanty bio. No...
#4, "Apparent inferiority" is a fit. Conversely, with EO's admittedly more
detailed background, Looney got 17 hits on the search engine, as 'twere.
Nay, I am saying we can draw up a list of likely traits/characteristics that
his biography, even a meager one, sans details, when read, will likely confirm
to be a part of his makeup. Such is not always the case, of course, but since
Steinbeck IS much better documented it gives us an opportunity to see that
traits/characteristics revealed in the works can indeed be squared with the
proper author; that subjective, deductive reasoning is not an invalid method of
approaching a mystery. Unscholarly, maybe, invalid, no.
> And now, go a step further, and remove Steinbeck's name from the novels and
short stories, just as anti-Shakespeareans regularly do for Shakespeare.
Done. I hypothesized that our nescient Steinbeck reader wouldn't even have to
know so much as the author's name to create a feasible profile from his books:
Californian, Okie-aware, etc.
> Discount contemporary references to Steinbeck, such as James Thurber's
notorious review of "The Moon is Down", by stating they were duped, mocking the
author, or part of the conspiracy. Assign the Steinbeck works to another
author, say Fitzgerald, or dos Passos, and begin to draw parallels to prove
your authorship case.
That would be exactly like assigning Shake-speare's works to Shakspere. With a
look at Fitzgerald and dos Passos' at-odds backgrounds it wouldn't take long to
say, "Where's the California central coast? Where the Okies? The Paisanos?
These guys didn't write those books." With the Stratman it's, "Where are the
academics? Where the lawyers? The falconers? The urbane courtiers? Where's the
guy above losing his head for presenting matters of state and religion in his
stuff? This guy didn't write these plays."
> After all, Fitzgerald was a great mixer with people, and knew the ways of the
wealthy, and Steinbeck from Salinas (an undistinguished little farm town) could
hardly have written "Winter of our Discontent" without being a monied East
Coast person.
The new reader might, upon deeper investigation to augment a detailess bio (how
detailess is it supposed to be?), discover that John lived the final years of
his life in Sag Harbor, and that the book's Bay Hampton is the very same place.
But a profile, a list of traits, whatever, logically would be made from those
which recur. Californian, Okie-aware, etc.
> No doubt F. Scott gave pearls to Zelda, and so we can establish his
authorship of "The Pearl". Yes, Fitzgerald died too early for the "Steinback"
canon, but his death was faked.....
Hey, you've got Hyperbolized Unorthodox Whak down pretty good there.
>> Good talking with you, though. Antipodally yours:
> At the moment, you are my favorite anti-Shakespearean.
Favorite anti-Shakespearean! Is there such a thing? Is this an oxymoron? That's
quite an honor, Neil. I have never played a leading role in an oxymoron. Been
billed as an Oxford moron a few times, but no blood spilled. Still, I will
again point out that I am merely anti-Stratfordian. A non-believer.
But I did go get the chapter and verse you asked for, and what's more, I got it
from the John Steinbeck Public Library in the no longer so little, yet still
undistinquished (unless you like world-class veggies), town of Salinas, CA..
I'm a homey, don't you know. In Benson's bio, a 1000 page paperback version,
the pertinent info is on pages 38-40, with more scattered throughout. Index
stuff.
Bruce Ariss's book is "Inside Cannery Row", published in 1988, four years after
Benson's. He traveled with John and Ricketts to Baja Cal in 1936 and since you
might not find that book on every street corner, I will relay this bit:
"Ed pulled the big car off the highway at the place John indicated and we got
out to stretch our legs. Ed and I checked the gasoline tins. They seemed okay,
although the ropes had loosened a bit. We snugged them up while John pointed
below and told us, "Down there, by the river, is where I laid the scene for
this book I'm proofing. It's the actual place, several years ago, where a posse
caught up with this guy who murdered a farm girl, and shot him dead. I was
working over that way, on a ranch, when it happened."
Were his authorship in question, how's that for a "smoking gun?" Again,
granting that better documentation is key, I say Steinbeck is a great example
of how an author can indeed be profiled, tracked down, and posited as the
creator of a body of work through the personal material in the content of the
work. That's why I piped up in the first place.
> As always, I enjoy the conversation.
Yea, that's the right idea.
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
Laila Roth
<snip>
>
> Lalia Bosh's version of the verse, "I'm rubber, you're glue, what you say
> bounces off of me and sticks to you." You are clearly the most clueless of
> the anti-Shakespeareans, and that's going some.
So your claim is there are no clues. That's the Stratford strategy:
just ignore all possible clues, even if they are self-evident. No
resistance against the Stratford dogma allowed, all anti-stratfordians
are wacks to be ignored or driven over by bulldozers. Just wipe them
out.
The Stratford dogma was established during the reign of James I, the
first autocratic Stuart, a man of small mind and a gigantic power
complex, who meticulously endeavoured to wipe out all the remaining
Elizabethans. There was no possible way to get away with publishing
the canon except under the perfectly non-controversial non-committal
name of Shakespeare. It was a matter of diplomacy made possible
probably by Bacon, who was in the game from the beginning in the
1580s. He was of the same age as Derby and related with him, and they
both helped each other all their lives. Derby was of the same
theatrical school and training as Oxford, his father-in-law, writing
comedies like Oxford, but no one could write good comedies during the
dismal reign of James I. So after Gloriana's death the outstanding
comedies turned into outstanding tragedies.
The clues are all over the place and self-evident. They all worked
together and constantly in hiding. In the 1580s all the playwrights
were anonymous. The first puritan attack against them was the case of
Kyd and Marlowe. They worked together and shared quarters together,
but when the axe fell Kyd lost his head and betrayed Marlowe, who had
to disappear to save the others. Every detail in the Marlowe murder
case speaks loudly of a set-up in a most dramatic and theatrical
manner, as contrived and staged by the greatest dramatic talents of
the day.
Oxford, Marlowe, Kyd, Jonson, Shakespeare, Bacon were all actors on
the stage. Derby alone always remained backstage, avoiding the
mistakes of possible fiascos, like Oxford's fart, Marlowe's risky
table-talk, Kyd's pathetic cowardice, Bacon's avarice and power
complex leading to his fall, and so on. Shakespeare and Jonson were
both professional theatre men, living on the stage, so they could
manage the business well and get well off it.
Only through his astonishing jealousy of his wife, resulting in gossip
at court, Derby gives himself away. He loved Essex and his wife, and
when they found each other his despair knew no limits of fury, since
they had both betrayed him together. This is the only clue we have to
the character of Othello, which differs totally from the Italian
original. It also gives a clue to the Sonnets story.
Drop dead, Stratfordians. Your time is out, king James is dead since
377 years, but his tyranny lingers on through you and your dogma.
Loony, Ogburn and Freud can't be all wrong in attributing the main
characteristics of the Shakespeare character to the earl of Oxford.
The Marlovians can't be all wrong in unanimously claiming the Deptford
drama was an obvious set-up. Lefranc, Titherley and other professors
of profound literary knowledge can't be all wrong in tracing much of
the details in the plays to Derby. The Baconians can't be all wrong in
pointing to all the evidence linking Bacon to the productions of the
plays. Only the Stratfordians can be all wrong.
Laila Roth, Derbyite
Laila Roth
> Laila Roth wrote:
> > I must confess, I am not an expert on science fiction, since I always
> > found that genre the most inhuman and therefore despicable of all.
>
> If you don't know something, maybe you shouldn't condemn it.
>
I do know something.
> For the rest, suffice it to say that you appear to be very ignorant.
That's your prejudice. You have already proved to know so much about
me that is perfect nonsense, so maybe you shouldn't condemn me since
you know nothing.
>
> > The
> > SF novels of H.G.Wells for exampe are all revolting.
>
> Speaking as a Christian, I find his non-fiction a great deal more
> troubling than his fiction, which is rarely any more "revolting"
> than, say, Ibsen or Galsworthy.
>
The only revolting thing about Herbert George is the unhumanity in his
SF stories.
> > Jules Verne at
> > least is human, and so is Dante - Dante relies for his visions on some
> > millennium of traditions in that field, which is obvious from what he
> > writes: he relies entirely on the writings of others, while he makes
> > his own deductions from them.
>
> A) It is insane to class Dante as "science fiction".
You have no imagination since you can't accept my improvised parables.
>
> B) But I'll be kind and assume that when you say "science fiction",
> you mean "SF", meaning "speculative fiction". Frankly, it's still
> a little weak classifying Dante so. Anyway, to say, "he relies
> entirely on the writings of others," of Dante is so far from reality
> as to make me suspect you haven't read him, either. The "Inferno"
> owes a certain (acknowledged) debt to the "Aeneid", but that's
> about all the truth there is to it.
>
What about medieval scholasticism, which pervades all of Dante's work?
> C) But let us assume that Dante falls into the category -- whatever
> it is -- that you're discussing. So do "A Midsummer Night's Dream",
a delightful fantasy, of course, but entirely human and mythological,
based on the Greek tradition, inspired by love.
> "Hamlet", "Macbeth", "Cymbeline",
These three are all historical, taken from history.
"The Winter's Tale", "The Tempest",
Inspired fantasies, like MSD.
> and other works of Shakespeare. So do "The Wizard of Oz", "Harry
> Potter", "The Lord of the Rings", and "The Little Mermaid".
>
Yes.
> > But all this has nothing to do with our topic. You are all
> > deliberately misunderstanding me and failing to grasp
>
> Stamping your feet and saying "'Tis, too!" isn't an argument.
> A cry of "Murder! Lions! Fascists!" is even less of one.
>
> > the special
> > uniqueness that I pointed out of characters like Othello and Lear,
> > which for their unfathomable sensitivity must have something
> > autobiographical about them.
>
> "Unfathomable sensitivity"? Are you even trying to make sense?
> Are you saying that Shakespeare the playwright didn't know his job?
>
I am saying there is more to Shakespeare than Shakspere.
> Not to mention that the reasoning is still false. "I can't
> understand this character," does not imply, "the character
> must be a self-portrait."
That's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that Othello is only
understandable if his feelings were the author's own experience. Derby
had that experience. There is no implication the others did.
Laila Roth, Derbyite
Neil Brennen
news:<aq9v4e$s3t$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
> <snip>
> >
> > Lalia Bosh's version of the verse, "I'm rubber, you're glue, what you
say
> > bounces off of me and sticks to you." You are clearly the most clueless
of
> > the anti-Shakespeareans, and that's going some.
>
> So your claim is there are no clues.
No, my claim is that YOU are clueless.
That's the Stratford strategy:
> just ignore all possible clues, even if they are self-evident. No
> resistance against the Stratford dogma allowed, all anti-stratfordians
> are wacks to be ignored or driven over by bulldozers. Just wipe them
> out.
You are a hysteric as well, I see.
Below is Lalia Bosh's typical anti-Shakespearean conspiracy theory. It's
just too delicious a fruitcake-post to snip, so I leave it for HLAS'
pleasure.
Laila Roth
> "Laila Roth" <lail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:fb346be4.02110...@posting.google.com...
> > "Neil Brennen" <chessne...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:<aq9v4e$s3t$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>...
> >
Dear Neil,
As usual you have got everything wrong from the beginning. To start
with, my name is not "Lalia Bosh" but Laila Roth. Try to distinguish
letters from each other and avoid confusing them. The way you twist
things around, even the pronunciation becomes all wrong.
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > Lalia Bosh's version of the verse, "I'm rubber, you're glue, what you
> say
> > > bounces off of me and sticks to you." You are clearly the most clueless
> of
> > > the anti-Shakespeareans, and that's going some.
> >
> > So your claim is there are no clues.
>
> No, my claim is that YOU are clueless.
>
The clues I present are identical with the clues presented by others.
Since you claim there are clues presented by others, why are the same
clues presented by me then so wrong, since you call me 'clueless'?
> That's the Stratford strategy:
> > just ignore all possible clues, even if they are self-evident. No
> > resistance against the Stratford dogma allowed, all anti-stratfordians
> > are wacks to be ignored or driven over by bulldozers. Just wipe them
> > out.
>
> You are a hysteric as well, I see.
No, only men are hysterics, but they are experts at covering it up in
intolerance.
Tom Reedy
did not make it to Google. It was still (barely) on
usenet.
After David posted this, Baker overcame whatever sense
of shame he had been under and began spewing his
moronic imbecilities again, so I partially blame David
for Baker's resurgence.
TR
"David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote in
message
news:271020021132070431%David....@Dartmouth.edu...
> In article
<fb346be4.02102...@posting.google.com>,
> lail...@yahoo.co.uk (Laila Roth) wrote:
>
> > Peter Groves <Peter....@arts.monash.edu.au>
wrote in message
> > news:<3DB3515D...@arts.monash.edu.au>...
> [...]
>
> > > I don't recall trying to silence anyone. I leave
that to our agents in
> > > the field. They're very efficient, and they've
got a little list (anyone
> > > heard from Dr Faker or Okay Fine recently?)
> > >
> > > Peter G.
>
> > This sounds to me like a bad conscience. No one has
accused you of
> > silencing anyone.
>
> One hesitates to explain a joke, but....
>
> > Concerning Okay Fine, I never had the pleasure of
> > meeting him in HLAS; but he seems to be well
remembered still for his
> > wit
>
> Wit? What wit? I'm afraid that you've been
misinformed, and that
> your newsgroup history is amiss here -- you must be
confusing Okay Fine
> with someone else. Okay Fine is remembered for his
demonstrated
> inability to read. He asserted that Puttenham (whom
he confused with
> Peacham) identified Oxford as "the best unattributed
writer in England
> at the time" (Okay Fine's words), and in support of
this claim he
> triumphantly cited an essay by Terry Ross. The only
trouble is that
> Terry's essay says nothing of the kind -- in fact,
the whole point of
> Terry's essay is *just the opposite*, that the
"quotation" furnished by
> Okay Fine is a bogus fabrication. Moreover, this
thesis is stated
> *explicitly* near the beginning of the essay, and
should have been
> apparent even to Okay Fine had he managed to make it
past the fourth
> sentence. Amazingly, Okay Fine rejoined that "Terry
Ross fooled me by
> quoting it as if it was genuine Puttenham. I had
forgotten how he
> buried the genuine quote later in the article...."
>
> I invite you to read the essay yourself at
>
> <http://shakespeareauthorship.com/putt1.html>
>
> -- if, unlike Okay Fine, you make it past the fourth
sentence, you will
> have no doubt what the essay is about. I also invite
you to read the
> thread itself at
>
>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.GSO.4.33.010
8171735370.5921-1
> 00000%40mail&output=gplain> and
>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8
&threadm=Pine.GSO.
>
4.33.0108171735370.5921-100000%40mail&rnum=27&prev=/gro
ups%3Fq%3Dg:thl73
>
9103336d%26dq%3D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%
3DPine.GSO.4.33.0
> 108171735370.5921-100000%2540mail%26rnum%3D27>
>
> and see if you still think that Okay Fine is
remembered for his "wit,"
> or rather for the complete lack thereof.
>
> > besides having had that advantage of not being
stuck on any
> > particular candidate. Like you (or unlike you) I
hope he returns some
> > day. When that happens, if it happens, it will be
an interesting
> > pleasure at least for me.
>
> It would be interesting only if one finds
monumental incompetence
> interesting. If you do, then permit me to recommend
Mr. Streitz's
> book.
>
> > Concerning Dr Baker,
>
> You are misinformed -- "Dr." Faker is no doctor;
his supposed Ph.D.
> was shown by Tom Reedy to be nonexistent.
>
> > I understand he was more or less demolished in
> > HLAS,
>
> No, you are misinformed again. Faker made an ass
of *himself* by
> claiming, on multiple occasions, credentials he does
not possess, then
> arrogantly browbeating and trying to intimidate
others whose
> credentials were supposedly inferior to his. On the
most recent
> occasion, Faker explicitly challenged Bob Grumman to
match his
> educational record:
>
> "Tell you what, Bob, if my educational record
isn't superior to
> yours I'll clean up those famous stables Webb was
jawing about
> the other day."
>
> When Alan Jones and others inquired exactly what
Faker's supposed
> educational qualifications were, numerous people
reproduced quotations
> from Faker himself claiming that he had a Ph.D., as
well as the
> following quotation from an article published in
_Elizabethan Review_:
>
> "John Baker, who received his PhD from Florida
State University,
> has published widely on the Elizabethan period and
the works of
> Shakespeare."
>
> Yet as Tom Reedy's inquiries at Florida State
diclosed, and has Faker
> himself was thereby compelled to admit, his supposed
Ph.D. is competely
> fraudulent. His feeble excuses and dodges included
the following:
>
> "And just for the record, no one has _ever_
challenged me and
> said, 'gee John you ought not to say you've taken
a Ph.D. when
> you haven't been given one...' In fact I don't
think anyone has
> ever even thought to challenge me on this until
now!
>
> "Frankly I think its the format here. I'm full of
myrth [sic]
> when I say this and my eye twinkle [sic]...so they
understand fully."
>
> and
>
> "Ph.D. could also mean Phytogenic Dipshit.
>
> "With this in mind I think one can even put the
letters M.D. after
> your [sic] name if it means 'mighty dumb' or
'Might [sic] Devious'
> and not get into any kind of legal hassle over it.
>
> "I remember a guy once who put C.P.A. after his
name and got
> chastized for it until he told them it stood for
'check prostrates
> [sic] and assholes.' Then it was legal."
>
> > which was very unlike the general HLAS policy,
which ordinarilöy
> > permits any crack-brain to put up with any
incredible nonsense at all.
> > Why would John Baker have been any different to
have been made such an
> > exception to HLAS tolerance?
>
> Faker was NOT any different, nor was he an
"exception" to h.l.a.s.
> tolerance. Nobody prevented Faker from posting his
paranoid suspicions
> that the lunar landing was faked, his crack-brained
boasts that he had
> "solved" Fermat's Last Theorem, the tasteless details
of his
> copulations with trees (I am not making this up), or
the farcical
> attempts to exculpate himself quoted above; moreover,
nobody exhorted
> him to leave even after his fraud was exposed.
Faker's absence from
> this newsgroup is entirely voluntary. Moreover, as
with almost all
> anti-Stratfordians, his wounds were strictly
self-inflicted. You
> really should get your facts straight.
>
> [...]
>
Xr...@pxcr8.pxcr.com
You're welcome.
I'm afraid that the people who most need to read it are also
the people most unlikely to read it.
Rob
Art Neuendorffer
>>Justin Kruger and David Dunning
>>People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many
>>social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this
>>overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these
>>domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous
>>conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them
>>of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors
>>found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor,
>>grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and
>>ability.
>>Rob
"Grammar's seeking bet.
Armor ticking arson duel tree shirker cockles an burden barter."
http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/ladle/
Art Neuendorffer
Lorenzo4344
>From: Art Neuendorffer aneuendor...@comcast.net
>Date: 11/12/2002
>"Grammar's seeking bet.
> Armor ticking arson duel tree shirker cockles an burden barter."
Encore! Here's #1 on my Chace Parade:
"A whores! A whores! Making dumb furry whores!"
Xr...@pxcr8.pxcr.com
Gnaw us do when tariff whored ashcan taint,
Mud-glow rye hush hummer-pie disown ave orc.
Rob
Peter Farey
>
> Alena/S wrote:
And, in any case, every one of us who did read it probably
assumed that it applied only to other people.
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Tom Reedy
in message
news:aqt02o$l5c$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Rob wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > I'm afraid that the people who most need to read it
are also
> > the people most unlikely to read it.
>
> And, in any case, every one of us who did read it
probably
> assumed that it applied only to other people.
>
>
> Peter F.
Not necessarily true, Peter. While I was growing up, I
had the thought more than once that I was probably
mentally retarded and that everybody around me was
telling me how smart I was in order to humor me and
make me feel better. There was no other way I could
explain the difference in my outlook from other, more
successful people. It gave me a healthy distrust of my
own perceptions.
I also noticed that nobody thinks of themselves as
stupid, although certainly some people were. I decided
that the way to tell for sure is that truly stupid
people are weak on self-examination and never doubt
themselves. Crowley and Streitz are good male examples
of this, and Weir and Roth female examples.
TR
Xr...@pxcr8.pxcr.com
I know that wasn't the case for me and since I have some respect for your
intellect, I'm guessing it wasn't really the case for you either.
Rob
Roger Nyle Parisious
> "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> in message
> news:aqt02o$l5c$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > Rob wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > I'm afraid that the people who most need to read it
> are also
> > > the people most unlikely to read it.
> >
> > And, in any case, every one of us who did read it
> probably
> > assumed that it applied only to other people.
> >
> >
> > Peter F.
>
> Not necessarily true, Peter. While I was growing up, I
> had the thought more than once that I was probably
> mentally retarded
RNP
It is agreeable to know that Tombo now believes that he thought
more than once in his youth. If so,that one chronicled thought is
still the most concise and accurate that he has ever entertained.
and that everybody around me was
> telling me how smart I was in order to humor me and
> make me feel better. There was no other way I could
> explain the difference in my outlook from other, more
> successful people. It gave me a healthy distrust of my
> own perceptions.
RNP
If you had reciprocated, others would still be humoring you.Better
you should wither into the truth.
>
BCD
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aqt02o$l5c$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Rob wrote:
> > I'm afraid that the people who most need to read it are also
> > the people most unlikely to read it.
>
> And, in any case, every one of us who did read it probably
> assumed that it applied only to other people.
***Reminding us of Swift's preface to *The Battle of the Books* etc.:
"SATIRE is a sort of glass wherein beholders do generally discover
everybody's face but their own; which is the chief reason for that
kind reception it meets with in the world, and that so very few are
offended with it. But, if it should happen otherwise, the danger
is not great; and I have learned from long experience never to
apprehend mischief from those understandings I have been able to
provoke: for anger and fury, though they add strength to the
sinews of the body, yet are found to relax those of the mind, and
to render all its efforts feeble and impotent.
"There is a brain that will endure but one scumming; let the owner
gather it with discretion, and manage his little stock with
husbandry; but, of all things, let him beware of bringing it under
the lash of his betters, because that will make it all bubble up
into impertinence, and he will find no new supply. Wit without
knowledge being a sort of cream, which gathers in a night to the
top, and by a skilful hand may be soon whipped into froth; but once
scummed away, what appears underneath will be fit for nothing but
to be thrown to the hogs."
Best Wishes,
--BCD
Web Site: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor
Visit unknown Los Angeles (now complete):
http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor/socal1.html
Lorenzo4344
>From: Xr...@pXcr8.pXcr.com
>Date: 11/12/2002
Rob, you are the coolest Strat - unflappable, accurate, explanationarily adept,
a steadfast loyalist, still... you are weak in this area of the arena. I had to
call in an Anguish Languish pro here, the renowned and VERY expensive Ms Germ
McKill, to double check my good opinion of you and begorrah... you have been
paraphrased for the worst, so seems, m' fren'.
"No whiz to wind turf shower disco tent
Maid glory use hummer bath is Sunday fork."
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
Peter Farey
Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > Rob wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > I'm afraid that the people who most need to read
> > > it are also the people most unlikely to read it.
> >
> > And, in any case, every one of us who did read it
> > probably assumed that it applied only to other
> > people.
>
> had the thought more than once that I was probably
> mentally retarded and that everybody around me was
> telling me how smart I was in order to humor me and
> make me feel better. There was no other way I could
> explain the difference in my outlook from other, more
> successful people. It gave me a healthy distrust of my
> own perceptions.
So you now think those perceptions were wrong?
> I also noticed that nobody thinks of themselves as
> stupid,
My point exactly, although Rob did pick up the
slight tongue-in-cheekiness of my words.
> although certainly some people were. I decided
> that the way to tell for sure is that truly stupid
> people are weak on self-examination and never doubt
> themselves. Crowley and Streitz are good male examples
> of this, and Weir and Roth female examples.
Whereas you and I, Tom, are the only ones here who
know how good we are at self-examination and at
doubting ourselves. Wouldn't find *us* saying that
we "know" who wrote Shakespeare, eh? ;o)
Tom Reedy
>
> Tom Reedy wrote:
> >
> > Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > > Rob wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > >
> > > > I'm afraid that the people who most need to
read
> > > > it are also the people most unlikely to read
it.
> > >
> > > And, in any case, every one of us who did read it
> > > probably assumed that it applied only to other
> > > people.
> >
> > Not necessarily true, Peter. While I was growing
up, I
> > had the thought more than once that I was probably
> > mentally retarded and that everybody around me was
> > telling me how smart I was in order to humor me and
> > make me feel better. There was no other way I could
> > explain the difference in my outlook from other,
more
> > successful people. It gave me a healthy distrust of
my
> > own perceptions.
>
> So you now think those perceptions were wrong?
That is my perception, yes.
> > I also noticed that nobody thinks of themselves as
> > stupid,
>
> My point exactly, although Rob did pick up the
> slight tongue-in-cheekiness of my words.
>
> > although certainly some people were. I decided
> > that the way to tell for sure is that truly stupid
> > people are weak on self-examination and never doubt
> > themselves. Crowley and Streitz are good male
examples
> > of this, and Weir and Roth female examples.
>
> Whereas you and I, Tom, are the only ones here who
> know how good we are at self-examination and at
> doubting ourselves. Wouldn't find *us* saying that
> we "know" who wrote Shakespeare, eh? ;o)
It is so refreshing to find such a right-thinking
fellow as fine as you, Peter.
TR
John W. Kennedy
> So your claim is there are no clues. That's the Stratford strategy:
> just ignore all possible clues, even if they are self-evident.
No, we ignore the "clues" because they exist only in your sick brains.
> No
> resistance against the Stratford dogma allowed,
No, we just get annoyed when loonies who got away from their keepers
stand up in the middle of _real_ discussions of Shakespeare and
start screaming nonsense.
> all anti-stratfordians
> are wacks to be ignored or driven over by bulldozers. Just wipe them
> out.
No, they just need to be locked up in institutions, where they won't
start biting people.
> The Stratford dogma was established during the reign of James I, the
> first autocratic Stuart, a man of small mind and a gigantic power
> complex, who meticulously endeavoured to wipe out all the remaining
> Elizabethans.
Hey, it says so in "1066 And All That", so it must be true.
> There was no possible way to get away with publishing
> the canon except under the perfectly non-controversial non-committal
> name of Shakespeare.
That is your demented phantasy.
> It was a matter of diplomacy made possible
> probably by Bacon, who was in the game from the beginning in the
> 1580s.
That is your demented phantasy.
> He was of the same age as Derby and related with him, and they
> both helped each other all their lives. Derby was of the same
> theatrical school and training as Oxford, his father-in-law, writing
> comedies like Oxford, but no one could write good comedies during the
> dismal reign of James I. So after Gloriana's death the outstanding
> comedies turned into outstanding tragedies.
That is your demented phantasy.
> The clues are all over the place and self-evident.
That is your demented phantasy.
> They all worked
> together and constantly in hiding.
That is your demented phantasy.
> In the 1580s all the playwrights
> were anonymous.
That is your demented phantasy.
> The first puritan attack against them was the case of
> Kyd and Marlowe. They worked together and shared quarters together,
> but when the axe fell Kyd lost his head and betrayed Marlowe, who had
> to disappear to save the others.
That is your demented phantasy.
> Every detail in the Marlowe murder
> case speaks loudly of a set-up in a most dramatic and theatrical
> manner, as contrived and staged by the greatest dramatic talents of
> the day.
That is your demented phantasy.
> Oxford, Marlowe, Kyd, Jonson, Shakespeare, Bacon were all actors on
> the stage.
That is your demented phantasy.
> Derby alone always remained backstage, avoiding the
> mistakes of possible fiascos, like Oxford's fart, Marlowe's risky
> table-talk, Kyd's pathetic cowardice, Bacon's avarice and power
> complex leading to his fall, and so on. Shakespeare and Jonson were
> both professional theatre men, living on the stage, so they could
> manage the business well and get well off it.
That is your demented phantasy.
> Only through his astonishing jealousy of his wife, resulting in gossip
> at court, Derby gives himself away.
That is your demented phantasy.
> He loved Essex and his wife, and
> when they found each other his despair knew no limits of fury, since
> they had both betrayed him together.
That is your demented phantasy.
> This is the only clue we have to
> the character of Othello, which differs totally from the Italian
> original. It also gives a clue to the Sonnets story.
That is your demented phantasy.
> Drop dead, Stratfordians. Your time is out, king James is dead since
> 377 years, but his tyranny lingers on through you and your dogma.
That is your paranoid, demented phantasy.
> Loony, Ogburn and Freud can't be all wrong in attributing the main
> characteristics of the Shakespeare character to the earl of Oxford.
Looney was insane, and belonged in a madhouse. Ogburn was insane,
and belonged in a madhouse. Freud was ignorant, and frequently
made a fool of himself when he left his own specialty.
> The Marlovians can't be all wrong in unanimously claiming the Deptford
> drama was an obvious set-up.
Yes they can, because they're all insane.
> Lefranc, Titherley and other professors
> of profound literary knowledge can't be all wrong in tracing much of
> the details in the plays to Derby.
Yes they can, because they're all insane.
> The Baconians can't be all wrong in
> pointing to all the evidence linking Bacon to the productions of the
> plays.
Yes they can, because they're all insane.
> Only the Stratfordians can be all wrong.
Poor us -- all we have on our side is facts and logic.
> Laila Roth, Derbyite
...and lost Princess of Ruritania, to boot. Because _those_
_people_ couldn't possibly be your real parents....
John W. Kennedy
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<uNiy9.5050$h4....@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>>Laila Roth wrote:
>>>I must confess, I am not an expert on science fiction, since I always
>>>found that genre the most inhuman and therefore despicable of all.
>>If you don't know something, maybe you shouldn't condemn it.
> I do know something.
No, you demonstrably do not. Your comments on science fiction, from
beginning to end show that, as usual, you haven't the faintest notion
of what you're talking about. The only thing different this time is
that you _admitted_ that you didn't know what you were talking about,
and then changed your mind.
>>For the rest, suffice it to say that you appear to be very ignorant.
> That's your prejudice. You have already proved to know so much about
> me that is perfect nonsense, so maybe you shouldn't condemn me since
> you know nothing.
I know a great deal about you. I know that you live in a phantasy
world in which you are the lost child of nobility, and I know, from
this very thread, that you know next to nothing about science fiction.
>>>The
>>>SF novels of H.G.Wells for exampe are all revolting.
>>Speaking as a Christian, I find his non-fiction a great deal more
>>troubling than his fiction, which is rarely any more "revolting"
>>than, say, Ibsen or Galsworthy.
> The only revolting thing about Herbert George is the unhumanity in his
> SF stories.
That's twice that you've used "inhuman" or "unhuman" without giving
any hint as to what you mean by it.
>>>Jules Verne at
>>>least is human, and so is Dante - Dante relies for his visions on some
>>>millennium of traditions in that field, which is obvious from what he
>>>writes: he relies entirely on the writings of others, while he makes
>>>his own deductions from them.
>>A) It is insane to class Dante as "science fiction".
> You have no imagination since you can't accept my improvised parables.
There is no "parable" involved here -- just your inability to think
clearly. Dante did not write science fiction, and therefore is out
of the running in a discussion of science fiction.
>>B) But I'll be kind and assume that when you say "science fiction",
>>you mean "SF", meaning "speculative fiction". Frankly, it's still
>>a little weak classifying Dante so. Anyway, to say, "he relies
>>entirely on the writings of others," of Dante is so far from reality
>>as to make me suspect you haven't read him, either. The "Inferno"
>>owes a certain (acknowledged) debt to the "Aeneid", but that's
>>about all the truth there is to it.
> What about medieval scholasticism, which pervades all of Dante's work?
You read that in a book somewhere, huh?
What does it have to do with his _storytelling_?
>>C) But let us assume that Dante falls into the category -- whatever
>>it is -- that you're discussing. So do "A Midsummer Night's Dream",
> a delightful fantasy, of course, but entirely human and mythological,
> based on the Greek tradition, inspired by love.
It is not "human"; many of the major characters are fairies.
Apart from the incidental use of the characters of Theseus and Hypolyta,
it has nothing to do with mythology.
There are no fairies in Greek tradition.
Love, as we know it, is an invention of Christian Europe.
And none of this answers the fact that, if it is rational to call
Dante "science fiction", then it is rational to call "Dream" "science
fiction", too.
>>"Hamlet", "Macbeth", "Cymbeline",
> These three are all historical, taken from history.
Really. So you believe in ghosts, witches, and apparitions of
Jupiter as "history"?
>> "The Winter's Tale", "The Tempest",
> Inspired fantasies, like MSD.
Then you concede that (in your peculiar classification system),
these are all "science fiction".
>>and other works of Shakespeare. So do "The Wizard of Oz", "Harry
>>Potter", "The Lord of the Rings", and "The Little Mermaid".
> Yes.
And you concede that all these are (according to you) "science
fiction"?
Then how on earth do you justify condemning (what you call)
"science fiction" out of hand?
> I am saying there is more to Shakespeare than Shakspere.
Yes. One "e". But the two spellings are equivalent in Elizabethan.
>>Not to mention that the reasoning is still false. "I can't
>>understand this character," does not imply, "the character
>>must be a self-portrait."
> That's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that Othello is only
> understandable if his feelings were the author's own experience. Derby
> had that experience. There is no implication the others did.
In other words, you still know nothing about writing and writers.
John W. Kennedy
> I also noticed that nobody thinks of themselves as
> stupid,
That's not entirely true; high-grade morons are usually
aware of their plight. What that might have to say about
some of the people here is left as an exercise for the
reader.