Mar. 20th, 2007

grysar: (Default)
The post had two columns in Sunday's outlook. One arguing that William Shakespeare wrote the plays and one that he didn't.

The "someone else" writer specifically complains that their views are frozen out of things like D.C.'s Shakespeare festival. That may well be true, but I've seen a fair amount of discussion on this issue in the mainstream press, so at very least they seem to have found other venues.

Anyhow, based on these two arguments, I'm comfortable with Shakespeare festivals not dealing much with the 'identity question.' The pro-Will column provided more documentations of what people in Shakespeare's time said about him. Similarly, while many plays are set in countries Shakespeare hasn't been, the anti-camp didn't provide any examples of first-hand detail of Italy or the Mediterranean in the plays. The life experience argument from the anti-camp also seems like crap, as the pro-side documents, other playwrights, such as Marlow, in his were in the middle class.

The political argument seems somewhat circular. A noble couldn't get away with parodying the people Shakespeare parodies, therefore Shakespeare is a noble writing under a pseudonym. Now, this is logically consistent, but since I'm not accepting the life experience argument. Apparently the middle class could get away with it, because if Will is just a patsy he never actually seemed to take the fall for the hidden playwright. Now maybe he wasn't punished because he didn't exist, but the anti-camp in this case doesn't even try for that argument. Similarly, the anti-Willians raise the issue of the plays having court knowledge but they don't really document it.

The proposed playwright is interesting and seems a fairly good match. However, the anti-Willites have almost literally gone through every major figure alive at the time (including some that died too soon). It's not horribly surprising that they found someone with a lot of coincidental similarities.

So, maybe there's a stronger case to be made out there. Feel free to link it if you know one. But if this is the best they've got, I'm not at all impressed.
grysar: (Default)
The Slate index covers three different markets, two paying and one free. I need to check out CSIS's professional ethics rules on this sort of thing. If nothing else, I could probably get in on the free betting one.

But I do really approve of this sort of thing. Particularly if they make it easy to track positions. Pundits don't really face any consequences for being repeatedly wrong. More markets like this, where people had to clearly state their bets on quantifiable outcomes, would be a great way to see whether their predictions have any value.
grysar: (Default)
Speaking of predictions, this just in from the Post:

"President Bush reaffirmed his "strong backing and support" for Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales in a telephone conversation with him thismorning, an endorsement that came amid wide speculation about Gonzales's future in the administration."


Administration shows of support, aside from those for Cheney or Rumsfeld, are classical kisses of death. He's toast. My bet, he won't last through March.

Profile

grysar: (Default)
Grysar

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 13th, 2025 08:48 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios