Hi, David,

Yes, it's fascinating to me to see that so many supporters of Shaksper as Shakespeare who live here in the UK object to any other writers because of their class status, whereas USAmericans tend to object on the ground of gender.  Maybe as time goes on, the USAmericans will object on the grounds of wealth because we've never actually had a purely 'class' ranking of ourselves.  Keep reading, much and carefully, as you always do -- try JCA Rathmell:  The Psalms of Sir Philip Sidney and the Countess of Pembroke.  It was my first major eye-opener.

I'm glad you had the -- shall we say 'courage'? -- to respond so passionately to what I knew would be a hefty challenge.

Best,  Judy

On 4 December 2014 at 06:52, David Bircumshaw <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear Judy

one big, really really big, problem with suggesting Mary Sidney as author of Shakspeare is that a substantial selection of the work she did publish is freely available at http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/marybib.htm because once you even dip into this it rather difficult to stop laughing. She was a rhymester, not a poet. I must confess my puzzlement as to why so many US Americans want Shakespeare to have been a titled somebody: according to stereotype, shouldn't the Brits be the more likely candidates for such an obsession? Accordingly I propose the following: that the authors of books that suggest other 'candidates' for the Authorship (of Shakespeare) have all been the pseudonyms of MINOR MEMBERS OF THE BRITISH ARISTOCRACY, inheritors of failed estates and fallen houses all, desperate to restore pedigree to a notch above the marketplace.

Best

Dave



On 4 December 2014 at 04:50, Judy Prince <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Peter, I can't answer your questions, but have found your crunching down the matters rather provocative.  I'm decidedly on the wrong list -- am USAmerican born (tho now living in the UK), am a playwright who writes poetic stretches in plays, and regard most poetry (yes, most poetry) as sometimes engaging, playful blow-ups of an element or two of that which makes up poetry.  And, thoroughly non-BritPo, I guess, my poet faves are Mary Sidney ('Shakespeare', as her works are known) in the poetic bits of her plays but not her sonnets, as well as some parts of the musical DT's 'Fern Hill'.  Others' poetry, from time to time, I 'like very much' but not so completely and utterly as Mary Sidney's. 

And I explode with boredom when folks try to categorise and list-ise poetry and poets (tho I happily and seriously do it m'sel').  I do read all these threads and contemplate what's behind and around them, usually wonder what in the world you lot are going on about.  ;-)

Best, Judy 

On 3 December 2014 at 23:42, Peter Riley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Re Tim:
"whenever you talk of the avant-garde you limit them to one particular section with which you have had profound disagreements" 

I don't think this is right. (I don't think "Cambridge" was avant-garde at all. Avant-garde or experimental in  those days was stuff like Finlay, Cobbing, Rot, Dada, ... than which not much could be further away.) I'm well aware of the varieties, and endless proliferation. 

Why I'm here is I would like to see a statement from someone willing to be called avant-gardiste, about why she finds it necessary or important, now, to write in this way, and to say this without reference to the dreaded philosophical book-list which John mentioned, or any other authorities on the human condition or on language, and without dragging in politics, and not a purely negative claim based on disdain for "mainstream". Just a straightforward why it is, about being read by people and how they should benefit. Or, why a writing which cannot, and is not allowed to, say. What is wrong with saying? Surely everyone must have thought about this. I'm waiting. 

Pr




--