![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 2005: Dead Horses and Closing Threads
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@shaksper.net) Date: 11/30/05
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1969 Wednesday, 30 November 2005 [1] From: Larry Weiss <larry@lweiss.net> Date: Tuesday, 29 Nov 2005 16:29:55 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 16.1958 Dead Horses and Closing Threads [2] From: Abigail Quart <aquart@worldnet.att.net> Date: Tuesday, 29 Nov 2005 18:18:03 -0500 Subj: RE: SHK 16.1958 Dead Horses and Closing Threads [3] From: Bill Lloyd <Bnklloyd@aol.com> Date: Wednesday, 30 Nov 2005 00:43:00 EST Subj: Re: SHK 16.1958 Dead Horses and Closing Threads [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss <larry@lweiss.net> Date: Tuesday, 29 Nov 2005 16:29:55 -0500 Subject: 16.1958 Dead Horses and Closing Threads Comment: Re: SHK 16.1958 Dead Horses and Closing Threads I hope Hardy will permit a brief response to Bill Lloyd's post, just to say (1) I have no substantial objection to his proposed modifications of my lists -- as I thought I made clear, they are tentative ideas offered for discussion; (2) to answer his questions: >It's difficult without some preliminary discussion to determine which >textual or critical theories are 'crackpot'. Does Larry mean A Lover's >Complaint? No. >Titus Andronicus? No. >Woodstock? Yes. And (3) to correct a misrecollection: >Some may have thought the Measure for Measure/Currency theory >that Larry defended so vehemently bordered on the crackpot. Please! I stood foursquare with Thomas Larque in *opposition* to that conjecture. I chimed in only after I felt that Tom was being ganged up on unfairly by the two proponents. And, finally, to endorse Bill's comments to the effect that non-scholars should not be discouraged from participating. As most SHAKSPERians know, my professional qualifications lie elsewhere, but there are some members who think I have from time to time made a useful and "serious" contribution. [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Abigail Quart <aquart@worldnet.att.net> Date: Tuesday, 29 Nov 2005 18:18:03 -0500 Subject: 16.1958 Dead Horses and Closing Threads Comment: RE: SHK 16.1958 Dead Horses and Closing Threads I'm with Bill Lloyd on this: >"It's difficult without some preliminary discussion to determine which >textual >or critical theories are 'crackpot'. Does Larry mean A Lover's >Complaint? Titus Andronicus? Woodstock? Some may have thought the >Measure for Measure/Currency theory that Larry defended so vehemently >bordered on the crackpot. (For the record, I didn't buy the theory, but >didn't think it crackpot.) Sometimes there's not a clear demarcation, >but rather a continuum between responsible speculation and crackpotation." As the only living proponent of the theory that Will wrote at least Sonnet #1 to a guy named Edmund, most likely his kid brother, am I not allowed to mutter about it without having a published paper to back it up? Which is fair, I suppose, but it does get so very lonely. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Lloyd <Bnklloyd@aol.com> Date: Wednesday, 30 Nov 2005 00:43:00 EST Subject: 16.1958 Dead Horses and Closing Threads Comment: Re: SHK 16.1958 Dead Horses and Closing Threads It's been pointed out to me that in my sermon on the scholarliness of SHAKSPER I inadvertently confused Larry Weiss [who offered a permissible/impermissible list] with Ed Taft [who defended Tom Krause's *Measure For Measure* thesis against Thomas Larque]. Apologies to both, if necessary. Hope I've got the names right this time. Confused Bill Lloyd _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook, editor@shaksper.net The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net> DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor assumes no responsibility for them.
|
|
|||||