Skip to main content

Frankly, my dear . . .

University of Warwick doctoral researcher Peter Kerwin -- in his blog The Shakespeare Apocrypha, one of the Warwick Blogs written by students and staff of the University of Warwick -- engaged in a lengthy discussion of Shakespeare authorship with alternate-authorship advocate Howard Schumann responding to Kerwin's Aug. 24, 2010 blog post announcing his July 29, 2010 publication of an article titled "Knowing Will Too Well" in the University of Warwick's Knowledge Centre online magazine. In his 23:32, August 28, 2010 comment responding to Schumann, Kerwin said:
The purpose of the [Knowledge Center] article was not to prove that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays, which frankly I don’t care about either way, but to point out that the essential grounds for doubt are flawed, and that creative biography is in many ways to blame, and that the debate cannot be resolved on these terms.
Earlier that day at 14:28, Aug. 28, 2010 Kirwin had commented to Schumann:
Your individual points have all been answered by wiser heads elsewhere, I’m more interested in the ideological questions. 
When Schumann objected to Kerwin's reliance on "wiser heads", Kirwin replied Aug. 29, 2010: 
If you mean by ‘dodged every issue’ that I’ve pointed out the fundamental methodological flaws in the argument rather than attempting to deal with every individual detail, then you’re absolutely correct, and have understood the purpose of the article.
The specific "individual detail" that Kirwin was uninterested in, is the literary sources of Shakespeare's plays which Kirwin dismissed with his fantastical invention of a pre-electronic, info-dump available to all Elizabethans -- similar, no doubt, to Ann Arbor's forthcoming community cable. On this topic, Kirwin said in his 14:28, Aug 28, 2010 post:
Finally, your complaint about sources is a) wrong (most of the sources of Shakespeare’s plays were available in English or Latin, both spoken by yer average grammar-school educated child) and b) reductive – the intertextuality of the period means that books, translations and ideas circulated freely. The most popular play performed on the Jacobean stage, A Game at Chess, was a complex political allegory about English/Spanish relations of a sophistication that an equivalent crowd today would simply not be able to grasp. This stuff was part of everyday conversation.
Kerwin's proclaimed indifference to his topic, reliance on "wiser heads", disregard of "individual detail", and invention of undocumented Elizabethan circulating libraries make him appear a less than rigorous researcher; yet, the bio attached to his Knowledge Centre article proclaims his work at the heart of academe in Shakespeare studies:
Peter Kirwan is a doctoral researcher at the University of Warwick, where he also completed his undergraduate and Masters degrees. He is part of a team led by Prof. Jonathan Bate preparing a new edition of "Collaborative Plays by Shakespeare and Others" for Palgrave MacMillan/The Royal Shakespeare Company. His doctoral work looks at early modern collaborative authorship, textual culture and repertory practice, and at later cultural appropriations of Shakespeare. He is also an established theatre reviewer and a tutor in the Department of English.
Shakespeare authorship inquirers should pay attention when a traditionally inclined academic proclaims his or her indifference to the authorship question because it is a refrain that is repeated more and more frequently and its ubiquity signals a movement in the status of the authorship question among Stratfordians. Their "I don't care." comments represent the second stage in the psychology of mind-changing following this progression:


Antagonism: I'm right. You're wrong and you're stupid, to boot.
Consideration: I'm right; but even if you might be right, I don't care because you're stupid.
Change of conviction: You're right; but I don't care because it's a stupid question and you're stupid.
Appropriation: You're right, but it was my idea all along -- and by the way, you're stupid.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Was King Richard III a Control Freak? Science News ... from universities, journals, and other research organizations   Mar. 4, 2013 — University of Leicester psychologists believe Richard III was not a psychopath -- but he may have had control freak tendencies. University of Leicester psychologists have made an analysis of Richard III's character -- aiming to get to the man behind the bones. Professor Mark Lansdale, Head of the University's School of Psychology, and forensic psychologist Dr Julian Boon have put together a psychological analysis of Richard III based on the consensus among historians relating to Richard's experiences and actions. They found that, while there was no evidence for Shakespeare's depiction of Richard III as a psychopath, he may have had "intolerance to uncertainty syndrome" -- which may have manifested in control freak tendencies. The academics presented their findings on Saturday, March 2 at the University

What's a popp'rin' pear?

James Wheaton reported yesterday in the Jackson Citizen Patriot that the Michigan Shakespeare Festival high school tour of Romeo and Juliet was criticized for inappropriate content -- " So me take issue with sexual innuendoes in Michigan Shakespeare Festival’s High School Tour performances of ‘Romeo & Juliet’" : Western [High School] parent Rosie Crowley said she was upset when she heard students laughing about sexual content in the play afterwards. Her son didn’t attend the performance Tuesday because of another commitment, she said.  “I think the theater company should have left out any references that were rated R,” Crowley said. “I would say that I’ve read Shakespeare, and what I was told from the students, I’ve never read anything that bad.”  She said she objected to scenes that involved pelvic thrusting and breast touching and to a line in which Mercutio makes suggestive comments to Romeo after looking up the skirt of a female. The problem with cutting out the naug

Winkler lights the match

by Linda Theil When asked by an interviewer why all the experts disagree with her on the legitimacy of the Shakespeare authorship question, journalist and author Elizabeth Winkler  calmly replied, "You've asked the wrong experts." * With that simple declaration Winkler exploded the topic of Shakespearean authorship forever. Anti-Stratfordians need no smoking gun, no convincing narrative, no reason who, how, when, or why because within the works lies the unassailable argument: Shakespeare's knowledge. Ask the lawyers. Ask the psychologists. Ask the librarians. Ask the historians. Ask the dramaturges. Ask the mathematicians. Ask the Greek scholars. Ask the physicists. Ask the astronomers. Ask the courtiers. Ask the bibliophiles. Ask the Italians. Ask the French. Ask the Russians. Ask the English. Ask everyone. Current academic agreement on a bevy of Shakespearean collaborators springs from an unspoken awareness of how much assistance the Stratfordian presumptive would h