In John Byrne's 1994 Next Men #26, the author intentionally misassigns a Shakespeare quote to Edward DeVere in obvious support for his candidate in the 'Alternative Authorship "Controversy" '. A Richard III quote I believe. As some may be aware, a decade after it's cliff hanger ending we are now beginning to get the relaunch from IDF Publishing. In the second issue, this month's issue, we find one of our heroes in the presence of "The Earl of Oxford, though thou may'st call me Edward". So here it comes.
I'm a rather huge Shakespeare fan, have looked at the issue of authorship very closely and am bothered by such suggestions. (accusations?) I wrote Byrne before on the issue in 1994 and I know he read my letter. I'm thinking of writing him again. Let's say that for John Byrne this subject is a lost cause, that he has his belief structure in place and simply cannot change. The issue, for the sake of the audience, should be presented fairly. If my letter is published or at least quoted, people who may be wondering about 'authorship' might have access to the credible data as well as the ... okay, I'll call it a conspiracy theory. I have some of the important data regarding the dates and debunking the argument, but I could use some suggestions about which logical fallacies may be in his way and leading him to support the bogus claim.
X
I'm a rather huge Shakespeare fan, have looked at the issue of authorship very closely and am bothered by such suggestions. (accusations?) I wrote Byrne before on the issue in 1994 and I know he read my letter. I'm thinking of writing him again. Let's say that for John Byrne this subject is a lost cause, that he has his belief structure in place and simply cannot change. The issue, for the sake of the audience, should be presented fairly. If my letter is published or at least quoted, people who may be wondering about 'authorship' might have access to the credible data as well as the ... okay, I'll call it a conspiracy theory. I have some of the important data regarding the dates and debunking the argument, but I could use some suggestions about which logical fallacies may be in his way and leading him to support the bogus claim.
X