This was fantastic. I can't wait to read this book. I hope it's a bestseller. It likely will be, thank goodness. I've ordered it to add to my many others on the 'Authorship Question'.
One book that I think would be really interesting is one with different chapters written by both Stratfordians and anti-Stratfordians discussing the authorship question.
Elizabeth's book quotes extensively from authorship researchers from all all perspectives. Her use of sources proves conclusively that that the Stratfordian belief is the delusion that cannot withstand critical and informed scrutiny.
In William Leahy, ed., "My Shakespeare: The Authorship Controversy," "experts examine the arguments for Bacon, Neville, Oxford, Marlowe, Mary Sidney, Shakspere, and Shakespeare." (Brighton, UK: Edward Everett Root, 2018). Essays by: Alan Nelson; Diana Price; Alexander Waugh; Ros Barber; John Casson; William D. Rubenstein, and David Ewald; Robin Williams; Barry Clarke; and William Leahy.
@@rstritmatterOf she could do that, why can't you? Of course, she can't. She hasn't convinced anyone who wasn't part of the tiny faction of the true believers.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Talk about wishful thinking; get your head out of the hole. Your reasoning is no stronger than your proofreading skills or your command of the empirical evidence. Good luck with your future attempts at suppression of debate. You will lose.
@@rstritmatter Well there certainly has been a massive uptick in the number of signatories to the DoRD since he book came out, right? No? Hmmm...wonder why not.
I'm not sure what is more amazing; Winkler's book, or her ability to discuss it. Either way, this is a remarkable publishing phenomenon. I wonder how you nominate someone for a Pulitzer.
Thank you for an excellent presentation of a book which may open the floodgates of doubt about the Stratford myth. One thing I noticed about her interview with Professor Margery Garber is that Garber would not entertain the idea that if you wanted to understand the plays, you have to understand the author's intentions. That requires knowing the author's life story and how his/her writing fits into their biography. She subscribes utterly to the "death of the author" theory of literary interpretation which came to prominence in the 1960s when radical notions about scholarship were being explored. I believe Shakespearean scholars have embraced it precisely because there is no solid evidence for the Stratford man's involvement in writing of any sort, let alone what was published under a name similar to his. The evidence they know they have few facts is seen throughout Elizabeth's presentation. It is telling that the Stratfordians she talked about here would not give straight answers or not answer some questions at all and were in general evasive. To me, it is a sign they are in retreat. I hope the book sells well and becomes a landmark in the literature of the Shakespeare Authorship Question.
Thank you Elizabeth, I was so sorry to have missed this live, I am glad that it has been uploaded to you-tube. I love your style, just to sit there and ask pertinent questions. I wonder whether you think that the tide is turning. Non Stratfordians refuse to be ridiculed, refuse to be ignored, and soon people will start listening. There is doubt, there is a legitimate question that needs answering. There was a real person who wrote the plays and the poems, and once you start to understand more about the person, you understand more about the work. If you try to separate the work from the real author you will never grasp the real meaning. Vero Nihil Verius
Best response to the whole authorship debate I ever heard was “it matters not WHO wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare; what matters is THAT they were written”……🙏🎭
@@chrisgamble4939 Right. A convenient lapse of memory. They likewise are quite uncomfortable with the narrative poems as they contradict the image of Shakespeare as a practical working-class playwright.
Absolutely clear portrayals of the sad, self-interested scholarship standing in the way of actual and wonderful factual evidence re annuity, or Jonson's "vere had his wit" The richness of the contemporary sources, this kind of Renaissance in thinking and deciphering is just so interesting....how can these people be stone cold on such dainty devices!? Yet sell their books W his (ahem) name.
"Anti-Shakespearean" is quite the telling semantic power-play, don't you think...? We all know that to be anti-Stratfordian is not to be anti-/Shakespeare/, but only to contest the traditional narrative of what's behind the name. But I am fairly certain that Stratfordians - aka the orthodox who define us as malcontent heretics - vehemently reject that term for them - as unnecessary, as pejorative (though it's technically not), as casting them down into a terminological equality of factions. Why should they be defined as "Stratfordians," they rail behind their academic ramparts, when they are the establishment, the default, the normal-and-therefore-right? Entrenched privilege always resents any terminological move which disqualifies its unearned status by way of actual qualification.
This was terrific, but to me (a newly converted Oxfordian) it suggested that something completely unrelated to the authorship issues was at play: All these scholars that Elizabeth Winkler tried to talk to seem to have a vested interest AKA a job as Stratfordians, and are not allowed, possibly not willing and incapable as well of mentioning the Unmentionable: Maybe William Shakspeare [not a misspelling] , the Stratford man we call Shakespeare was not the author. Oh heaves! Heresey! The world is coming to an end! How dare you discuss what we [All] know to be a fact which we refuse to prove! What next? Shakespeare a woman? Maybe a Jewish woman [see: 'Reform Judaism,' "Unmasking Shakespeare," Summer 2010, pages 34-39 & 46]? maybe a Scottish woman? and so forth. I'm very much looking forward to reading Elizabeth Winkler's book. I just hope that, when I do, a bolt of lightening will not strike me dead. Oh Horror! Thanks for a great presentation, Elizabeth Winkler.
She is the one who sought out Shakespeare scholars, who frankly have better things to do that to listen to the same long-debunked claims over and over again. There are plenty of people show could have interviewed who don't earn a dime from Shakespeare who could easily have answered her speculations, but she didn't ask them. She had to accost a 92 year-old man.
? @Jeffhowardmeade I must be very stupid, because I absolutely don't understand what you were trying to say. To put it bluntly: Did you like or hate Elizabeth Winkler?
@@waggishsagacity7947 "She had to accost a 92 year-old man." Should make my feelings pretty clear. But I'll try saying it another way to see if that helps. Scholars like Shapiro and Greenblatt and Garber have been putting up with this nonsense for their entire careers. Winkler's thesis is that denying Shakespeare is an academic taboo, which she "proves" by going after a bunch of academics who are the equivalent of epidemiologists having to listen to yet another anti-vaxxer. They have been asked and answered this stupid conspiracy theory long and They don't want to deal with it anymore not because it's taboo but because it's a tedious waste of time. The only one she could get to address the issue was a very old man who asks accuses of lying when he claims not to remember one of the most obscure references to Shakespeare of the 17th Century. And even then she gets the reference wrong. When another (Garber, I think) says she doesn't care who the author was, and that she's a professor of literature, Winkler questions the honesty of that answer as well. Nobody is obliged to defend their position to crackpots. If they don't want to, it's not because the subject is taboo, or because they fear for their tenure or position in the Shakespeare Patriarchy. It's because it's beneath them. But it's not beneath me, a lowly retired civil servant, with nothing but a state college degree and a love of Shakespeare to my credit. I could inundate Winkler with documentary evidence that Shakespeare was the actor and gentleman from Stratford all day long. But she's not going to ask me, now, is she?
Winkler's half-right. The man from Stratford did not write the works. That case is solidly made as it has been by dozens of others. This should be common knowledge by now. But neither did a woman. Winkler does not make a case for that and neither do the plays nor the sonnets. Winkler's just trying to sell books in our woke times. Apparently, she's quite good at THAT.
she is not actually claiming that at all. the title (shakespeare was a woman) is simply being entertaining and provocative. and why not. at the end of the day, (relative to overpopulation, energy and the 6th mass extinction etc etc) who shakespeare was is a subject of zero importance. she seems to be making two points. firstly, there is about as much evidence shakespeare was a woman as the endless stratfordian suppositions created entirely from whole cloth. and if shakespeare was a cabal of many writers, under the patronage of eddie de vere, with de vere having the greatest input, as increasingly looks to be the case, certain female authors may indeed have penned some of it. the plays certainly had to pass the scrutiny of queen elizabeth, so in a way, she had an input, and may even have contributed quite a lot of ideas in discussions with de vere and others
I think you have that backwards. The "woke" ( and yes I"m proudly anti-woke ) are aligned with the University community. They are in lockstep agreement that so-called unacceptable speech must be censored out of existence. The Stratfordian Professors are predecessors of and contributors to the woke movement because they are liars who are trying to censor any contrary ideas out of existence. @@alexleanh
Bravo! This book should be a blockbuster.
Brilliant. Thank you Elisabeth!
Thank you Elizabeth … Very sorry many people have such entrenched views that they are unwilling to shine the light of enquiry upon the matter
Caroline’s sister! I can’t wait to read this book.
This was fantastic. I can't wait to read this book. I hope it's a bestseller. It likely will be, thank goodness. I've ordered it to add to my many others on the 'Authorship Question'.
One book that I think would be really interesting is one with different chapters written by both Stratfordians and anti-Stratfordians discussing the authorship question.
Elizabeth's book quotes extensively from authorship researchers from all all perspectives. Her use of sources proves conclusively that that the Stratfordian belief is the delusion that cannot withstand critical and informed scrutiny.
In William Leahy, ed., "My Shakespeare: The Authorship Controversy," "experts examine the arguments for Bacon, Neville, Oxford, Marlowe, Mary Sidney, Shakspere, and Shakespeare." (Brighton, UK: Edward Everett Root, 2018). Essays by: Alan Nelson; Diana Price; Alexander Waugh; Ros Barber; John Casson; William D. Rubenstein, and David Ewald; Robin Williams; Barry Clarke; and William Leahy.
@@rstritmatterOf she could do that, why can't you?
Of course, she can't. She hasn't convinced anyone who wasn't part of the tiny faction of the true believers.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Talk about wishful thinking; get your head out of the hole. Your reasoning is no stronger than your proofreading skills or your command of the empirical evidence. Good luck with your future attempts at suppression of debate. You will lose.
@@rstritmatter Well there certainly has been a massive uptick in the number of signatories to the DoRD since he book came out, right? No? Hmmm...wonder why not.
I'm not sure what is more amazing; Winkler's book, or her ability to discuss it. Either way, this is a remarkable publishing phenomenon. I wonder how you nominate someone for a Pulitzer.
"Let great authors, therefore have their due, but so as not to defraud time which is the author of authors and the parent of truth."-Francis Bacon
Thus Bacon spoke in defense of his cousin the Earl of Oxford and all great authors.
@@rstritmatter why is it at the time of Edward de Vere's death that no eulogies were given?
Loved the book! The major Stratfordian figures come off very badly by refusing to give a straight answer to her questions.
Thank you for an excellent presentation of a book which may open the floodgates of doubt about the Stratford myth.
One thing I noticed about her interview with Professor Margery Garber is that Garber would not entertain the idea that if you wanted to understand the plays, you have to understand the author's intentions. That requires knowing the author's life story and how his/her writing fits into their biography. She subscribes utterly to the "death of the author" theory of literary interpretation which came to prominence in the 1960s when radical notions about scholarship were being explored.
I believe Shakespearean scholars have embraced it precisely because there is no solid evidence for the Stratford man's involvement in writing of any sort, let alone what was published under a name similar to his. The evidence they know they have few facts is seen throughout Elizabeth's presentation. It is telling that the Stratfordians she talked about here would not give straight answers or not answer some questions at all and were in general evasive. To me, it is a sign they are in retreat.
I hope the book sells well and becomes a landmark in the literature of the Shakespeare Authorship Question.
Thank you Elizabeth, I was so sorry to have missed this live, I am glad that it has been uploaded to you-tube. I love your style, just to sit there and ask pertinent questions. I wonder whether you think that the tide is turning. Non Stratfordians refuse to be ridiculed, refuse to be ignored, and soon people will start listening. There is doubt, there is a legitimate question that needs answering. There was a real person who wrote the plays and the poems, and once you start to understand more about the person, you understand more about the work. If you try to separate the work from the real author you will never grasp the real meaning. Vero Nihil Verius
"... soon people will start listening."
You've been claiming that for over a century.
I see Shakespeare as a group of writers I don't see why a woman could not be one of them there was educated woman
Best response to the whole authorship debate I ever heard was “it matters not WHO wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare; what matters is THAT they were written”……🙏🎭
And how would we know what they actually say without knowing who wrote them?
And what does THAT have to do with the price of tea in China?
That's a frequent cop-out.
That's Playitis, a serious disease very common among Stratfordians. It's where people forget about the existence of the Sonnets
@@chrisgamble4939 Right. A convenient lapse of memory. They likewise are quite uncomfortable with the narrative poems as they contradict the image of Shakespeare as a practical working-class playwright.
Absolutely clear portrayals of the sad, self-interested scholarship standing in the way of actual and wonderful factual evidence re annuity, or Jonson's "vere had his wit"
The richness of the contemporary sources, this kind of Renaissance in thinking and deciphering is just so interesting....how can these people be stone cold on such dainty devices!? Yet sell their books W his (ahem) name.
An interesting book that however, I don’t know why, mentions all the candidates beside John Florio. Why??
"Anti-Shakespearean" is quite the telling semantic power-play, don't you think...? We all know that to be anti-Stratfordian is not to be anti-/Shakespeare/, but only to contest the traditional narrative of what's behind the name. But I am fairly certain that Stratfordians - aka the orthodox who define us as malcontent heretics - vehemently reject that term for them - as unnecessary, as pejorative (though it's technically not), as casting them down into a terminological equality of factions. Why should they be defined as "Stratfordians," they rail behind their academic ramparts, when they are the establishment, the default, the normal-and-therefore-right? Entrenched privilege always resents any terminological move which disqualifies its unearned status by way of actual qualification.
They’re all just keeping their jobs. Period.
Agree. Seems to be a disease spreading through contemporary society.
it is nearly impossible to get someone to understand something if their job depends on them not understanding it.
@@andy-the-gardenerOr if it's utter nonsense.
This was terrific, but to me (a newly converted Oxfordian) it suggested that something completely unrelated to the authorship issues was at play: All these scholars that Elizabeth Winkler tried to talk to seem to have a vested interest AKA a job as Stratfordians, and are not allowed, possibly not willing and incapable as well of mentioning the Unmentionable: Maybe William Shakspeare [not a misspelling] , the Stratford man we call Shakespeare was not the author. Oh heaves! Heresey! The world is coming to an end! How dare you discuss what we [All] know to be a fact which we refuse to prove! What next? Shakespeare a woman? Maybe a Jewish woman [see: 'Reform Judaism,' "Unmasking Shakespeare," Summer 2010, pages 34-39 & 46]? maybe a Scottish woman? and so forth. I'm very much looking forward to reading Elizabeth Winkler's book. I just hope that, when I do, a bolt of lightening will not strike me dead. Oh Horror! Thanks for a great presentation, Elizabeth Winkler.
She is the one who sought out Shakespeare scholars, who frankly have better things to do that to listen to the same long-debunked claims over and over again.
There are plenty of people show could have interviewed who don't earn a dime from Shakespeare who could easily have answered her speculations, but she didn't ask them. She had to accost a 92 year-old man.
? @Jeffhowardmeade I must be very stupid, because I absolutely don't understand what you were trying to say. To put it bluntly: Did you like or hate Elizabeth Winkler?
@@waggishsagacity7947 "She had to accost a 92 year-old man." Should make my feelings pretty clear. But I'll try saying it another way to see if that helps.
Scholars like Shapiro and Greenblatt and Garber have been putting up with this nonsense for their entire careers. Winkler's thesis is that denying Shakespeare is an academic taboo, which she "proves" by going after a bunch of academics who are the equivalent of epidemiologists having to listen to yet another anti-vaxxer. They have been asked and answered this stupid conspiracy theory long and They don't want to deal with it anymore not because it's taboo but because it's a tedious waste of time. The only one she could get to address the issue was a very old man who asks accuses of lying when he claims not to remember one of the most obscure references to Shakespeare of the 17th Century. And even then she gets the reference wrong. When another (Garber, I think) says she doesn't care who the author was, and that she's a professor of literature, Winkler questions the honesty of that answer as well.
Nobody is obliged to defend their position to crackpots. If they don't want to, it's not because the subject is taboo, or because they fear for their tenure or position in the Shakespeare Patriarchy. It's because it's beneath them.
But it's not beneath me, a lowly retired civil servant, with nothing but a state college degree and a love of Shakespeare to my credit. I could inundate Winkler with documentary evidence that Shakespeare was the actor and gentleman from Stratford all day long.
But she's not going to ask me, now, is she?
@@waggishsagacity7947 Jeff Howard doesn't know what he's saying. He's an internet troll hard at work defending dweebs like James Shapiro.
'promosm' 🤔
Winkler's half-right. The man from Stratford did not write the works. That case is solidly made as it has been by dozens of others. This should be common knowledge by now. But neither did a woman. Winkler does not make a case for that and neither do the plays nor the sonnets. Winkler's just trying to sell books in our woke times. Apparently, she's quite good at THAT.
she is not actually claiming that at all. the title (shakespeare was a woman) is simply being entertaining and provocative. and why not. at the end of the day, (relative to overpopulation, energy and the 6th mass extinction etc etc) who shakespeare was is a subject of zero importance. she seems to be making two points. firstly, there is about as much evidence shakespeare was a woman as the endless stratfordian suppositions created entirely from whole cloth. and if shakespeare was a cabal of many writers, under the patronage of eddie de vere, with de vere having the greatest input, as increasingly looks to be the case, certain female authors may indeed have penned some of it. the plays certainly had to pass the scrutiny of queen elizabeth, so in a way, she had an input, and may even have contributed quite a lot of ideas in discussions with de vere and others
I think you have that backwards. The "woke" ( and yes I"m proudly anti-woke ) are aligned with the University community. They are in lockstep agreement that so-called unacceptable speech must be censored out of existence. The Stratfordian Professors are predecessors of and contributors to the woke movement because they are liars who are trying to censor any contrary ideas out of existence. @@alexleanh
@@andy-the-gardener Now don't expect Mooneman327 to actually read the book. He's here to condescend with his own assumptions.