a word from our sponsors
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 This feature, while it still provides useful information, is no longer maintained.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
I think Chuck's post was rather funny, quite clever, and I think
he's dead on right in saying 'Without background, you're merely
hunting Martians.' You see, Prof Mike's proposition is we do know
a lot about Shakespeare, we do have a lot of background, but it's
not all in the Folger books. There's a certain amount of snooping
to be done. If many signs point to Southhampton as the recipient
of the sonnets (he was the recipient of Venus and Adonis) then
we do know this, historically - Southhampton was gay. Okay, so
then, we take this albeit slim lead and search further, and
try to make the connection between the text, and see if we can't
find reason to believe that shakespeare either was or wasn't in
love with Southhampton. This is wading in perilous water, i know,
but it's certainly more interesting that merely saying, he wasn't gay
unless you show me a letter that says he was. That's never going
to happen. So what that means is, Shakespeare scholarship
hits a dead end, (which it has.) We are talking about theorizing,
like scientists theorize worm holes and quarks. Then, one day
the actual factual fact (I like that - it's like something a Martian
might say) comes out, and voila. But Chuck's method is to sit
and do nothing until the discovery occurs. For me, that's no fun.
Now, continue.... sorry for the interuption....
Posted by Bill Routhier on April 16, 1997 at 08:53:11
In Reply to "We're both ridiculous, but I'm doing it deliberately, and you can't help it." posted by Reality Chuck on April 16, 1997 at 06:03:03
Replies | Post Reply | Shakespeare Queries & Replies From Everyone Else 4.2.97: Top | Help