today's bit of Anonysnark
comes from the heroic Holger Syme, who also wrote this now-classic piece of snark (be sure to check out all the tinhats in the comments, including THE SCREENWRITER OF THE MOVIE, whose style would be unprepossessing even to someone whose gorge did not rise at the premise of this film), and is less snark and more of a statement on why this stuff matters:
I fear we will actually have to engage with what they consider evidence; we will have to explain, in venues and formats as popular and widely available as those used by the anti-Stratfordians, why their claims don’t make sense; and we will have to be much more robust in our presentation of the facts. I don’t find this an intellectually stimulating (let alone rewarding) prospect, nor do I think there are many constructive conversations to be had. I also don’t relish the thought of having to spend any of my time in the company of Charles Beauclerk’s writings. But if we don’t take part in the public discussion, if we don’t carefully detail our own position and debunk the supposedly skeptical point of view in as accessible a language and manner as the other side, we risk losing by default. Silence will be interpreted as defeat or, worse yet, consent. I’ve read Much Ado About Nothing. I don’t want to be Hero.
Also, there is some good discussion in the comments of that post on the legacy of Bardolatry (whether it gave rise to antistratfordianism or New Historicism or both).
On the other hand, there is also a picture of a poster for a German production of Macbeth that bills it as being "by Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, alias William Shakespeare." NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
ETA: And some more!
Alan Jacobs offers some questions to ask your local antistratfordian.
And mithrigil wrote a sonnet!
I fear we will actually have to engage with what they consider evidence; we will have to explain, in venues and formats as popular and widely available as those used by the anti-Stratfordians, why their claims don’t make sense; and we will have to be much more robust in our presentation of the facts. I don’t find this an intellectually stimulating (let alone rewarding) prospect, nor do I think there are many constructive conversations to be had. I also don’t relish the thought of having to spend any of my time in the company of Charles Beauclerk’s writings. But if we don’t take part in the public discussion, if we don’t carefully detail our own position and debunk the supposedly skeptical point of view in as accessible a language and manner as the other side, we risk losing by default. Silence will be interpreted as defeat or, worse yet, consent. I’ve read Much Ado About Nothing. I don’t want to be Hero.
Also, there is some good discussion in the comments of that post on the legacy of Bardolatry (whether it gave rise to antistratfordianism or New Historicism or both).
On the other hand, there is also a picture of a poster for a German production of Macbeth that bills it as being "by Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, alias William Shakespeare." NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
ETA: And some more!
Alan Jacobs offers some questions to ask your local antistratfordian.
And mithrigil wrote a sonnet!