Skip to main content

Stratford Festival's communications director David Prosser considers name-calling appropriate communication

by Linda Theil

An article titled “Come not between the Oxfordian and his wrath to paraphrase Lear” appeared in the Toronto Globe & Mail on October 16, 2013 -- the day before the Toronto Shakespeare authorship conference began. This piece did not get as much attention as later articles in the local press criticizing York University and Guelph University for their roles in supporting the conference.

In the October 16 article, Stratfordian Kelly Nestruck wrote about an encounter last year between Toronto Shakespeare authorship conference organizer Don Rubin and Ontario's Stratford Festival communications director David Prosser at a day-long authorship seminar Rubin convened on April 7, 2012 wherein Prosser compared authorship inquiry with Holocaust denial.

According to Nestruck’s October 16 article, Prosser said he regretted his comment. Nestruck wrote:
In defending the traditional, fact-based narrative that a fellow named William Shakespeare wrote William Shakespeare’s plays, Prosser made what he now calls a “rhetorical mistake” – asking if there might not be equal grounds for a class questioning whether the Holocaust happened?
“I should have said something less emotionally charged – like how do we really know the Americans landed on the moon,” says Prosser.
I was astonished to discover that -- according to Prosser – he only regretted the "rhetorical mistake" of having used a emotion-laden metaphor. He didn’t regret calling those who wish to study the Shakespeare authorship a despicable name? He only wished he had used a despicable name that fewer people cared about? Is name-calling considered a legitimate rhetorical device at the Shakespeare Festival in Ontario where Prosser serves as "communications" director?

It is hard to reconcile that great institution with Prosser and his crude comprehension of appropriate public discourse. We have complained before about the Shakespeare Festival's support of bullying and we are sorry to see by this recent Nestruck article that the Festival depends on communications professionals possessed of such limited communications skills.

In addition, we suggest to writer Kelly Nestruck that calling the traditional Stratfordian attribution of Shakespeare's plays, "fact-based" does not make that statement true any more than Prosser calling anti-Strats holocaust-deniers makes his statement true. I refer Nestruck to Stratfordian David Ellis' book The Truth about William Shakespeare: Fact, Fiction, and Modern Biography (Edinburgh University, 2012) for one Stratfordian's take on Shakespeare "facts".

Resources:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/theatre-and-performance/come-not-between-the-oxfordian-and-his-wrath-to-paraphrase-lear/article14889071/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/theatre-and-performance/amid-controversy-the-debate-over-who-wrote-shakespeare-comes-to-toronto/article14889619/?page=1
http://www.guelphmercury.com/news-story/4164840-guelph-professors-troubled-over-shakespeare-debate/
http://oberonshakespearestudygroup.blogspot.com/2012/04/prosser-asks-why-dont-we-study.html
http://oberonshakespearestudygroup.blogspot.com/2013/08/stanley-and-paul-visit-ontario.html
http://oberonshakespearestudygroup.blogspot.com/2012/07/uk-professor-says-shakespeare.html
http://www.stratfordfestival.ca
http://oberonshakespearestudygroup.blogspot.com/2012/07/uk-professor-says-shakespeare.html

Comments

psi said…
Great blog entry, Linda. Highly quotable.

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