The truly dedicated veterans of the pursuit, however, know that even the insipid every day bird rewards close observation. Take, for instance, my discovery the other day of the return of the Common Strat Troll to one of my Facebook groups.
On this occasion he accepted an invitation to put up a post of his own. This is a quite a rare occurrence — almost unheard of outside the collective nesting area of the breed where a sense of collective security emboldens the bird. The Common Strat Troll almost always chURPs its endless song from within the less daunting realm of the comment thread.
But I was in for an even more special treat. On this occasion the Buchan bird (we name our birds here as a way of giving them some little bit of character) not only chose to post but chose to “review” (their chURP for the verb “libel”) my first Shakespeare Authorship title: Edward de Vere was Shakespeare: at long last the proof.
I got to watch at close range as he URPed up:
While most birds regURgitate their bile in order to feed their fledglings in the nest, the Common Strat Troll regURgitates its to feed its enormous ego. It was a textbook start.
The Common Strat Troll always begins with a blatant lie thinking to attract a mate. The book Edward De Vere was Shake-speare: at long last, the proof actually features 135 end notes and a bibliography of 119 of the finest titles in the field. As the extensive and precise critical paraphernalia makes clear, the text is based closely on documentary, largely primary, source material.
Buchan's attempt was immediately successful. The Kathman Troll URPchucked a reply building on the blatant lie: “People like Purdy are allergic to documentary evidence.” All of my books, of course, are completely documented, from quality sources and generally with material from primary sources. Still, it was love at first chURP.
Encouraged by Kathman's reply, Buchan Troll brought up a truly malodorous gob of libel intending that any passersby would be offended by it and would get away as quickly as possible.
No matter that the sentence is completely bereft of substance. That was completely intentional. What does he claim was “cribbed”? What required attribution that didn't receive it? The whole point of this Strat Troll's song was to libel under cover of writing a review. In general, the chURP of the species is intended to disparage. This saves the inconvenience of learning enough about the topic of a book to actually review the content.
The Troll song continued:
As is true of all bird-calls, it was essentially a repeat of the previous. Either the Troll's history professors in college have delegated to him the authority to speak for them or it is just another sentence intentionally steering clear of even the slightest substance in favor of libel.
The Common Strat Troll, displaying the limited brain-size of all birds, its chURPS are necessarily repetitive.
Oh dear! How devastating! But what is an “expected source”? It's nothing but a mild insult utterly bereft of titles or otherwise substance. Where is the list of these “expected sources”? Or at least a sample of the “most expected”. Why would I cite the book's bibliography when making factual assertions? I do most certainly cite sources within the text and/or end notes in De Vere was Shake-speare: at long last, the proof and all of my scholarly works. The works cited do appear in the extensive bibliographies always provided. Some of the books listed are standard high value titles. Others were obscure before I introduced them into the Authorship arena (or still are) but possessed of new information.
Always on the lookout for opportunities to inform the virtual birder community, though, this all provides an excellent opportunity to clarify the habits of the Common Strat Troll to those who haven't the time to study the species analytically. Let us analyze the previous three chURPS of the Buchan Troll, then:
Most of it seems to be cribbed from other people's original research on [Shakespeare's] life (mostly without attribution).
It reads like an undergrad lit review, though my history professors would have marked you down for not citing your sources for your claims.
You cite the expected sources in the bibliography, but not when you state what appear to be factual assertions.
Applied to the works of the Kathman Troll these are every bit as applicable.
The fact is, the accusations apply equally as well to his work as they do to mine or to any scholarly work by Jonathan Bates or Stanley Wells, Edmund Malone, etc. Because there is nothing to apply. Zero. These censures are not censures. They are empty insults designed only to offend enough passersby to negatively affect book sales.
If the Common Strat Troll knows anything it knows that learning its purported subject is a waste of valuable time. Its actual subject is how to twist words, obfuscate, lie and defame, none of which requires any other area of expURtise. It's all just the malodious chURP of the Common Strat Troll.
Also at Virtual Grub Street:
- Rocco Bonetti's Blackfriars Fencing School and Lord Hunsdon's Water Pipe. August 12, 2023. “... the tenement late in the tenure of John Lyllie gentleman & nowe in the tenure of the said Rocho Bonetti...”
On Shakespeare's lameness and historical-fiction biography, etc. August 5, 2023. “Those who support Sogliardo of Stratford and other authorship candidates generally stop by from time to time to remark...”
- Shakespeare CSI: Sir Thomas More, Hand-D. April 22, 2023. “What a glory to have an actual hand-written manuscript from the greatest English writer of all time!”
- Robert Greene and the Construction Shakespeare (Almost) Never Used. August 9, 2022. 'Our first foray “staring intently into” the texts of Robert Greene has noted that his work utilized far fewer feminine endings than Shakespeare’s.'
A 1572 Oxford Letter and the Player’s Speech in Hamlet. August 11, 2020. “The player’s speech has been a source of consternation among Shakespeare scholars for above 200 years. Why was Aeneas’ tale chosen as the subject?”
- Check out the Shakespeare Authorship Article Index for many more articles and reviews about this fascinating time and about the Shakespeare Authorship Question.
- Check out the Letters Index: Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford for many letters from this fascinating time, some related to the Shakespeare Authorship Question.
1 comment:
Its always difficult to pin down these species of troll. When you present fact A, they talk about fact B which may or may not be relevant to the discussion. Their chURPing goes on and on with ad hominems disguised as legitimate discussion. They love the look of their own words and relentlessly try to argue fictions over facts. You could say that about anyone who puts word on paper or posts online, but for the various species of Strat troll, it is a never-ending source of annoyance most of the time, an amusing nuisance at other times.
Where was I going with this? Oh yes. I have had my share of run-ins with Roman-named anonymous trolls and those who claim they work with evidence, yet their lack of understanding that there may be facts they don't know about is amazing. When presented with them, they dismiss them or ignore them, then add new threads to the argument in an attempt at the Gish Gallop.
Now, the Gish Gallop is a new type of logical fallacy most likely born out of the internet. It's main purpose is to bombard opponents with dozens of seemingly related facts in order to disprove an argument. They do it by forcing opponents to rebut every point which is made. The aim is to get them so frustrated they give up.
Imagine a Strat troll bringing more detritus and nesting material to another internet "bird" than that bird can handle. Once they give up attempting to rebut each bit of detritus, the Strat troll claims victory. The truth is they have not engaged in proper debate.
Some day we might put these Strat trolls into some sort of taxonomy, though most of them use every dirty trick in the book to assume a position of imaginary superiority, so it might only be possible to sort out their tactics and call them for what they are: bullies.
Post a Comment