See the new shakespeare.com. This feature, while it still provides useful information, is no longer maintained.

Replies | Post Reply | Shakespeare Queries & Replies From Everyone Else 4.2.97: Top | Help

Interpret the literature, but not the author.

You wrote:
>>> and all I meant my my post was that to dismiss an idea
outright soley on the basis of it not being the accepted
idea is folly, by any standards or definition. <<<

That may be what you have meant, although I fail to
see the relevency to this discussion. The only idea which
I have dismissed is the notion that one can determine
an author's sexual preference based simply upon a work he
(or she) has penned.

>>>>> I don't have proof of my theory, but I don't toss
away possibilites just because I can't prove them.<<<<

Just state them as theory, and pure speculative theory
based upon no historical evidence, and you should do fine.

>>> That kind of thinking is the Western wisdom that
discounts anything that can't be fit into a mathematical
formula. <<<<

I shall ignore your bigotry toward the Western world.
However, the kind of "thinking" I am advocating is (simply)
honesty in communication.

-Bruce

• The "I Interpret That Hamlet Was Really A Horse" Page

Posted by Bruce Spielbauer on April 13, 1997 at 22:01:21
In Reply to "Bruce, I argue for a complex Shakespeare, that's all..." posted by Bill Routhier on April 13, 1997 at 21:28:22

 Replies

 Post a Reply

Replies | Post Reply | Shakespeare Queries & Replies From Everyone Else 4.2.97: Top | Help