No one is suggesting that the article remain as is; only that there is no fire to put out. As it stands, much of the information is accurate, and the speculation is put forward as just that--speculation. Since, there has, in fact, been speculation on the point--however questionable we may find the research--presenting that fact does not seem egregious. I would, obviously, write the entry differently; I'll amend the entry when I find the time.
Best,
Kim
________________________________________
From: Sidney-Spenser Discussion List [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Steven J. Willett [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 9:07 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: challenge to Sidneians?
> I just read through the entry, and I don't have any real problems with
> it. It does, as you say, seem to lend some authority to an idea that I
> would dismiss out of hand; but since the idea laid out under the rubric
> of "Speculation on Sidney as Shakespeare," it is appropriately couched.
How I wonder can utter nonsense be "appropriately couched"? This is just a
continuation of the Person X wrote Shakespeare syndrome and should be
exterminated wherever it appears. My much-missed colleague Sam Shoenbaum
and I laughed over this sort of nonsense long ago, but clearly the
syndrome cannot be laughed out of existence. There is no reason to
tolerate it.
Apropos nothing, a few years back I was invited to the Cognitive Poetics
Workshop at Tel Aviv University by the Israeli Academy of Sciences. On a
subsequent tour of Jerusalem, I found a large stone dedicated to Sam at
the high point of the city where the landscape spread out below us in its
hard, stony glory. The stone brought back a flood of memories.
--
Steven Willett
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
US phone: (503) 390-1070
Japan phone: (053) 475-4714
|