Alice’s Adventures in Authorship Land

2 Responses

1. There's nothing wrong with doubt or skepticism but with Shakespeare the doubters and skeptics have gone one step further, picking and choosing what they consider relevant "evidence" of a different authorship and then putting together a random selection of such "proofs" to reach their own subjective theory about authorship. In so doing their theories become far more dubious and less intellectually honest than the so-called elites who purportedly dismiss alternative theories of authorship. The doubters subjectively select the "facts" or events that fit their a priori theory and produce nothing more than a crazay-quilt of unrelated patches. This is no different from the 9/11 truthers who select  unrelated pieces of information randomly and then piece it together to support their analyses. The Shakespeare doubters are no different from creationists, who demand that agnostics disprove a negative, i.e. that God does not exist, rather than offering positive proof that he does. Very slick but no cigars, and none for the Shakespeare skeptics either.

   Reply

2. The problem with comments like this is that they present nothing but airy generalizations.  No specific arguments are made or addressed.   What we are given is another serving of warmed-over condescension, as though there were no need to stoop to answer.    That's enough to keep the Stratford industry afloat on a sea of sheer inertia.  In other words, the comment exemplies the very syndrome identified in the article.  No surprise.  Notice that it's implied the "doubters" carry some burden of proof they fail to satisfy.  But those who observe the gaping holes in the conventional unwisdom show that its supporters do not meet THEIR burden.  That's the Alice-In-Wonderland complex in a nutshell.   Get thee to thy drawing board. 

   Reply