MovieChat Forums > In Search of Shakespeare (2004) Discussion > Conjecture presented as fact

Conjecture presented as fact

posted 16 years ago by burttheswimmer
4 replies | jump to latest

This is an appalling piece of history, looking for the sensationalist angle and misinterpreting evidence to back it up. Much of this is either untrue or twisted.

The evidence of Catholicism is highly questionable (most felt the document was a fake, even at the time), and Wood ignores contrary evidence totally, then spends the rest of the series referring to Shakespeare's faith as though it is proven fact.

At the very least, the word "probably", "possibly", "might" should have been liberally used.

[–] Wolverine37 14 years ago

There are so many contradictory beliefs held by Shakespeare scholars, who choose which evidence they personally find most compelling to be fact, that I can hardly blame Wood for treating his theories as hard facts. There are a number of classrooms and lecture halls where everything in this doc is taught as indisputable fact.

Now, he did take some real liberties with the document in the Stratford house (thought to be a forgery before it vanished), the Lancashire stuff (this is about as fringey as the Marlovian theory) and, especially, the dating of the plays and sonnets to match events at the time. But as a piece of popular history, which is really what it is, I can forgive it.

[–] burttheswimmer 14 years ago

"There are so many contradictory beliefs held by Shakespeare scholars, who choose which evidence they personally find most compelling to be fact, that I can hardly blame Wood for treating his theories as hard facts."
This makes no sense whatsoever. Are you saying that because other people are selective with their choiced of evidence it is alright to treat speculation as fact? Think of the implications of that... And any classroom or lecture hall (and in my vast experience I have never seen one) that holds th document up as fact is not a place of proper learning. I rather think you are holding up a view with no evidence as fact yourself.

You are correct that this is popular history, but it is dressed up as authoritative, and that cannot be excused. The problem is that people believe as fact what is put in front of them in documentary television, and the faws should be pointed out.

[–] Wolverine37 13 years ago

The sheer number of Stratfordians and anti-Stratfordians in scholarship should be proof that a lot of serious scholars teach various things about the Bard as fact with no such proof. The entire Oxfordian theory is based on conjecture and yet is taught by any number of people as definitive fact.

And what works of popular history have you ever seen that hasn't been dressed up as authoritative?

[–] burttheswimmer 13 years ago

You have not responded. You said you cannot blame someone for treating something speculative as hard fact because there are conflicting theories. That means that if anyone disagrees with me I can treat speculation as hard fact as a result.

Again in your reply you say any number of people teach the theory as fact;
1. What is your point? That makes it alright?
2. Where is your evidence for this "any number of people"? It is just you saying it.

What scholarly anti-Stratfordians are there? I know of none. But you say there is a "sheer sumber". Who? Teaching in what recognised positions?

You don't seem to have an argument. It boils down to "some people use conjecture as fact". So what? That's not an argument, just an admittance that some people are wrong.