in which NPR is really out of its element

[tempestsarekind]

So NPR published this ridiculous interview with Mark Rylance and Derek Jacobi about "the authorship question" on (I think) April 25, in which they said the usual ridiculous things, and the interviewer actually closed with "who cares what they say as long as they say it with those accents?" so it was clearly not a rigorous sort of interview

Comments

[a_t_rain]

All in all, it seemed as good a time as any to sit down with two of the world's most acclaimed Shakespearean actors to chat about who wrote the plays they have lived, breathed and, by the way, studied, for decades.

AARRGHHH. I hate the assumption that being an actor (or a Supreme Court justice) somehow makes one an expert on biographical and historical matters. It doesn't work the other way around; nobody interviews Stephen Greenblatt or James Shapiro and asks them to give their expert opinion on acting or constitutional law. So why on earth is it assumed that academic expertise is somehow not-real, and that someone from a totally different profession can do just as well as long as they're distinguished enough in that field?

[tempestsarekind]

I DON'T KNOW; IT IS THE WORST! Because you're absolutely right; the fact that actors and Supreme Court justices have signed this dumb Certificate of Doubt, or whatever it's called, is trotted out as evidence all the time, as though that means they've actually studied the issue in question. Meanwhile everyone knows that academics only support "the Stratford man" because they're trying to rake in the big bucks; it's not because they actually have expertise that matters on this issue.

Get out of here with your elitist book-learnings, academics! Why are you so defensive about this issue, huh??? Is it because you're trying to cover up the truth??? (I mean, it couldn't possibly be because this "question" makes a mockery of what academic research - especially in the humanities - actually does, or anything.)

[negothick]

nineweaving is the expert in this area: she tells me that the so-called "Certificate of Doubt" has been circulating for over a decade and has gotten over 3,000 signatures.

Sounds impressive, until you think that someone raised $55,000 in one day for a potato salad recipe.

Seriously, I heard this interview on Morning Edition, early in the morning, and thought I was still having a nightmare.

[negothick]

And I agree with your assessment of NPR's response article. Could anything be more condescending than this sign-off?
"One final thought from me: This is one of the rare NPR stories where the online comments (at least, as of this writing) are both delightful and actually on point to the article."

[angevin2]

It makes me so sad that people whose acting I admire so much say such stupid things.

On a more positive note, David Tennant was on Colbert the other night and when Colbert asked him about this issue he said that really, it was snobbish. Plus he didn't know who any of the supposed alternatives were, which is rather nice. And more generally I think the good guys have pretty much won this one -- ironically, Anonymous helped kill the idea that there was anything to the "controversy," both because it's so stupid and because Shakespeare scholars finally came out in force and explained why it's stupid.

[a_t_rain]

There needs to be a masterlist of actors and directors who are NOT idiots about authorship. IIRC, both Trevor Nunn and Janet Suzman have said eminently sensible things.

[tempestsarekind]

I just hate articles like this one, though - because sure, you and I have read the rebuttals from scholars and the anti-Anonymous blog posts, but for many people, seeing this on NPR is going to suggest that there is actually a question here, and that we don't really know whether Shakespeare wrote those plays, right? After all, it was in the news!