Discussion:
Jonathan Bate, Holocaust Denial, and Pomposity
(too old to reply)
gangleri
2005-07-06 01:05:06 UTC
Permalink
I looked up "Jonathan Bate" on the Internet and came across the
following:

Does it really matter to you "who wrote Shakespeare"?

Yeah, it does. Whereas, I think, a lot of the more postmodern critics,
someone like Marjorie Garber, will probably say no, it doesn't.

So how do you answer the question, Why does it matter?

Partly it's to do with honoring truth, honoring fact, which it seems to
me we have a historical duty to do. And, you know, without being
melodramatic about it, you deny the reality of Shakespeare one moment,
you can deny the reality of the Holocaust the next. I mean, that's the
melodramatic answer. A conspiracy theory about the "Shakespeare
industry," a conspiracy theory about the "Holocaust industry." It's the
responsibility of scholarship to examine evidence -- and, okay, fact is
always interpreted, the way we select fact is always value-laden, but
history did happen, facts do exist, and we forget that at our peril. So
that's a kind of moral argument.

And then I also think, at another level, it matters because the truth
about Shakespeare, which is that he was someone from the provinces,
from a sort of lower-middle-class background, with no university
education -- though a decent grammar school education -- who still
managed to achieve an extraordinary amount, that does seem to me, in
its quiet way, to be a heroic story, a story that is worth admiring.
It's like a story of an ordinary person making it into the White House.
And the problem -- less with the Marlowe theory, but with the other
ones, particularly the Earl of Oxford and the various other
aristocratic theories that have really had a lot of currency, and
really have more currency than the Marlowe theory -- is that they are
so condescending and snobbish. The suggestion that you have to be a
mighty aristocrat in order to write mighty works, I find that
politically very offensive. So, you know, without meaning to be
pompous, I have got a moral and a political argument there.

****

Well - after equating disagreement with HIS views on the Shakespeare
Authorship issue to Holocaust Denial - he didn't mean to come across
like a pompous ass.
Spam Scone
2005-07-06 03:01:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by gangleri
I looked up "Jonathan Bate" on the Internet and came across the
Does it really matter to you "who wrote Shakespeare"?
Yeah, it does. Whereas, I think, a lot of the more postmodern critics,
someone like Marjorie Garber, will probably say no, it doesn't.
So how do you answer the question, Why does it matter?
Partly it's to do with honoring truth, honoring fact, which it seems to
me we have a historical duty to do. And, you know, without being
melodramatic about it, you deny the reality of Shakespeare one moment,
you can deny the reality of the Holocaust the next. I mean, that's the
melodramatic answer.
Yes, we agree on that.

A conspiracy theory about the "Shakespeare
Post by gangleri
industry," a conspiracy theory about the "Holocaust industry." It's the
responsibility of scholarship to examine evidence -- and, okay, fact is
always interpreted, the way we select fact is always value-laden, but
history did happen, facts do exist, and we forget that at our peril. So
that's a kind of moral argument.
Except that Holocaust denial is antiSemitism, not just a case of
crackpottery. I suggest Mr. Bates read Denying the Holocaust by Deborah
Lipstadt.
Post by gangleri
And then I also think, at another level, it matters because the truth
about Shakespeare, which is that he was someone from the provinces,
from a sort of lower-middle-class background, with no university
education -- though a decent grammar school education -- who still
managed to achieve an extraordinary amount, that does seem to me, in
its quiet way, to be a heroic story, a story that is worth admiring.
It's like a story of an ordinary person making it into the White House.
And the problem -- less with the Marlowe theory, but with the other
ones, particularly the Earl of Oxford and the various other
aristocratic theories that have really had a lot of currency, and
really have more currency than the Marlowe theory -- is that they are
so condescending and snobbish. The suggestion that you have to be a
mighty aristocrat in order to write mighty works, I find that
politically very offensive. So, you know, without meaning to be
pompous, I have got a moral and a political argument there.
****
Well - after equating disagreement with HIS views on the Shakespeare
Authorship issue...
A non-issue if ever there was one.

...to Holocaust Denial - he didn't mean to come across
Post by gangleri
like a pompous ass.
Pot, meet kettle.
gangleri
2005-07-06 13:31:56 UTC
Permalink
:)

But it will be hard to top Bate in one respect - his sense of propriety
in accepting to serve as judge of the relative merits of Hoffman essays
on (by his lights) the looney propositiion that Marlowe was THE author
of ALL the works of Shakespeare.

Loading...