T.G. Buckley-Dockter – Founder; Publisher; Editor-in-Chief; Distribution Manager; Intrepid Reporter; IT Guy; Coffee Girl
email: fwepub@aol.com
MOTTO: Unmask falsehood and bring truth to light.
All editorial All social commentary All for the common good
Issue Number 24 – October 7, 2019
********************************
SETTING: Darkened stage in an outdoor theater; sell-out crowd. John Lennon’s song Gimme Some Truth quietly plays over the sound system.
SCENE 1 – Center stage: A spotlight shines on an aristocratic gentlemen wearing Tudor costume and regalia. He strolls from end to end, shaking a spear. He stops, peers out into the darkness, the music stops. He bows, addresses the audience.
“Good evening, gentle masses. Kindly raise your hand if you have heard of the Shakespeare authorship controversy.” A few hands pop up.
“Alas, just as I thought. Not many. In fact, out of the general population world-wide, approximately 99.99999999% have no idea what I’m referring to. I know this because I have recently discovered a thing called Google. Nifty little trick. If I had known about this tool before, I could have found more descriptors for ‘buffoon’ for my buddy Falstaff. Having a vocabulary of 60,000 words sometimes isn’t enough. But more on that comic character later.”
“Thank you for attending this performance. My name is Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. I died in 1604. But that’s neither here nor there. Since then I have watched closely the unfolding of the Authorship Question and the slavish misplaced devotion to the ethically-challenged and barely-literate businessman from Stratford-upon-Avon, William Shakspere (correct spelling). Some say it is much ado about nothing. Some say the only reason they get out of bed in the morning is to write another article or book about it. To all I say, ‘Who doesn’t love a good mystery’?”*
An audience member calls out. “I thought this play was about Alice in Wonderland!”
“Ah, kind sir. If it is ‘curiouser and curiouser” you desire, you have come to the right place. Stay tuned. And you might want to monitor your beer intake. Our theater policy is You barf it out. You clean it up.”
Spot light off. Darkened stage. Green Day‘s song Don’t Wanna Be an American Idiot blares over the sound system.
SCENE 2 – Drab interior of a dimly-lit police interrogation room. Square table. De Vere stands against a chair on one side. Three men sit at the other three sides. Man #1 wears a tattered “Members Only” windbreaker. Man #2 wears a Buddhist robe. Man #3 wears a worn tweed blazer with faux-suede elbow patches.
De Vere leans into the table: “I am Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford and…”
The three men fall on the ground in a prostate position.
DV: “Oh for heaven’s sake, get up! Yeesh. This is going to be harder than I thought. Please identify yourselves so I will know what to call you.”
Man #1: “Head Mucky-Muck #1.”
Man #2: “Self-proclaimed Head Mucky-Muck #2.”
Man #3: “Head Cranky-Muck #3.”
De Vere: “Remind me to use those names in my next play. But first, please state your occupatios for the record.”
Muck 1: “I run a club that’s all about you!”
Muck 2: “I review stuff written about you!”
Muck 3: “I write books about you and have received boatloads of accolades from the three people who have read them.”
DV: “And why do you do this?”
M1: “Late in life it has become my immortality project.”
M2: “Late in life it has become my raison d’etre.”
M3: “Because I have absolutely zero skills to do anything else.”
DV: “Muck 3, aren’t you the guy in the authorship question community who shuns people who don’t revere your so-called lofty position?”
M3: “You’ve heard of me? Wonderful!”
DV: “That’s not a good thing. Whatev. We shall continue. Tell me about your organization, the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship.”
M1: “It’s like the Mickey Mouse Club. Fun and giggles. Only with way less funding.”
M2: “And with more older white men and way less women. Because we don’t value their opinion. Only their checkbooks.”
M3: “Which I have no qualms about squandering. I also refuse to deal with women donors. I have been known to write one of them an email stating as much. I don’t justify my actions to anyone, no matter how lame they might be. That’s the Mrs.’ job.”
DV: “I see. Do you chaps consider SOF a collaborative organization?”
Much laughter.
DV: “Do you consider the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship a successful organization?”
M1: “Most certainly. One of our esteemed members has edited a book compiling an index of all the authorship question materials out there. Probably by now there are 10,000 works. Approximately 5,000 people have signed the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt. How about that return on investment: 2 books per 1 signature. Phenomenal!”
M2: “Hell yes. The world population is 7 billion people. We have over 400 people in our club. You do the math.”
M3: “I’m in it, aren’t I?”
DV: “Do you think SOF has any organizational shortcomings?”
M1: “Don’t allude to shortcoming to a group of old white men.”
M2: “You will be dead to us.”
M3: “Dead and buried. In a pauper’s grave. Or worse, a woman’s grave.”
DV: “Do you consider SOF a professional organization? Like adhering to standards of excellence? Like meeting deadlines? Like treating all people with respect?”
Three sets of shrugged shoulders.
DV: “Let me rephrase the question. Is it professional if you don’t admit to screw-ups and don’t try to fix them? Is it professional to blame an Amazon.com policy for never printing a study guide three months after it was promised? Is it professional to send an email blaming a member for ‘disappointing’ conference attendees because she asked for a refund for payment of a product that never was produced, even though she had raised concerns about it several times to a BOD member, which obviously fell on deaf ears and resulting in no action because old-thinking white men never call out other white men and it’s easier to throw a woman under the bus? Is it professional to fail to mention in an email that it was SOF who broke the contract that the donor agreed upon without so much as an update or explanation in over three months? Is it professional to issue punitive reprisals to a female member who has to the balls to point out a problem in your club?”
Three confused looks.
DV: “Moving on. Does SOF have a mission statement?”
M1: “BOD first. Customers second.”
M2: “No, I think it’s individual status first. Organizational needs last. I forget what’s in the middle.”
M3: “No, Muck #2, that’s not it. Our mission is to preserve egos at all times.”
Collective giggles.
DV: “Do you consider SOF an intelligent organization?”
Three “Duh’s.”
DV: “I guess that is an intelligent form of ‘yes’? Therefore, is it intelligent to form a committee in 2014 to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Looney book and then in 2019 be caught flat-footed with no place to hold such a celebration?”
“Is it intelligent to underestimate the expected number of conference attendees in Chicago, Oakland, and Hartford so that people who have busy lives and are not able to make a commitment to attend a half-year in advance are consequently left out? If someone mentions that lack of hotel space in Chicago and Oakland to a BOD member, was it intelligent not to correct the planning problem for future conferences?”
“Is it intelligent to blame the media for not having ‘the courage’ to cover a conference instead of building something newsworthy-enough that would compel media to want to come to it?”
“Is it intelligent to replace a pre-conference dinner location from a fantastic place (House #1) to one that is not so much (House #2)? The dinner was originally planned to be held at a huge, kick-a house with a huge living room and huge windows with spectacular views overlooking the entire Rogue Valley; a huge kitchen to accommodate the catered dinner that would be served; open bar; a huge backyard with a heated swimming pool and jacuzzi (and in-door sauna and jacuzzi bathtub to relieve the tired muscles of conference attendees); four extra bedrooms free-of-charge for attendees, along with meals, airport transportation; and a hostess who cares about the comfort of her guests.”
“But most important, is it intelligent to replace House #1 that is located 3 miles from the Ashland Hills Hotel (and about 1.5 miles from the Oregon Shakespeare Festival) with House #2 located 38 miles away–first along Highway 5 through Talent, Phoenix, and Medford; through the stop signs of Jacksonville; then into the hinterlands of Oregon down a winding, unlighted road; and finally up a hard-to-find dusty gravel driveway that even Elon Musk would have trouble navigating–even without a glass of wine?”
M1: “They’re serving wine here? I’ll have a glass of Chateau Margaux, please.”
M2: “This chap is serving ‘whine.’ And it’s getting on my nerves.”
M3: “I don’t get paid enough to listen to this.”
M1: “At least you are getting paid.”
M2: “Yeah, the rest of us aren’t.”
M3: “It pays to be cranky.”
“Gentlemen, please. Let me recap this question in case it was too complicated for you fellows to follow. How is eliminating Big House #1 that is convenient and more comfortable for conference attendees and replacing it with out-of-the way Small House #2 a ‘compensation for disappointment’? That is not a reward. That is torture.”
“It is also a misstatement about who actually caused the disappointment (as to why the Study Guide was never produced). Is it an intelligent decision to annoy this member–who has been in the process of preparing the Big House with remodeling/furnishing, etc., and who also offered use of a second medium-sized Ashland home with three free bedrooms and meals and located a short walk across the street to the Ashland Hills Hotel?”
“Was it professionally or kindly handled to have her informed that her home had been replaced as the pre-conference dinner location through a group email?”
“Isn’t this member–also known as a customer–the type you want in your organization? Is it an intelligent decision to ignore a tried-and-true rule of business–that it is easier to maintain a customer than it is to gain a new one?”
M1: “Huh?”
M2: “Who said we are a business? We’re like the Harper Valley PTA. This is about us having a platform to strut our stuff. Am I right, Muck #3?”
M3: “Rarely, but who cares?”
DV: “Didn’t one of you send a member an email praising her generosity with OSF and expressing admiration for her spunky spirit? And then the very next day send an email twisting the Study Guide situation to look unfavorably and cheaply upon her?”
Silence.
DV: “Speaking of being cheap, have any of you and other members of the BOD come close to this member’s 157 Amazon Smile Program purchases that monetarily benefit SOF? Have any of you been the one to bring the most food/booze (and hostess/host gift) when attending a SOF-related dinner? Have any of you been the one to show up early to set up and stayed late to clean up? Have any of you been the Snack Lady carting around cookies and a pump pot of Peets to authorship question classes? Have any of you offered to pick up the entire tab for an SOF dinner at Hearsay Restaurant? Have any of you paid for at least half a tab? Have any of you provided a monetary scholarship to enable a person to attend a conference? Have any of you handed out dozens of authorship question books and DVDs to help further the cause? Have any of you specifically welcomed a first-time attendee and given him/her a book to get started understanding this complicated topic? Have any of you set out a premium box of chocolates after lunch at a conference session to help ensure that attendees don’t fall asleep (as attendees sometimes do fall asleep)?”
Three sets of snoring.
DV: “Are any of you aware there might be a problem with the printing of Mark Twain’s book Is Shakespeare Dead? due to any number of circumstances (e.g., shortcomings): lack of priority; lack of time; lack of organizational skills; lack of quality control; lack of supervision; etc.? Do any of you know that a poorly-produced product reflects badly on the organization?”
M1 wakes up; jabs his elbow into M2.
M1: “This guy is no fun. Is it too late to switch our allegiance to Francis Bacon?”
M2: “If we’re going in that direction, I vote for Mary Sidney. She’s cuter.”
M3: “All I want to do is write arcane stuff. What am I doing here? Do you know who I am?”
DV: “No really. But do any of you know who Toni Dockter is? She’s my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-granddaughter? From the Wriothesley side. She inherited my penchant for spending but also my gift for satire. I couldn’t be more proud! And you, fellas, are right now smack dab in the middle of a satirical play–whether you know it or not–playing different versions of Falstaff. Delicious irony. Dontcha love it!”
DV: “Me thinks me has spent too much time with Hunter S. Thompson.”
M2: “Me thinks if we’re in a play that’s spoken aloud, my ‘whine’ joke will not make sense.”
DV: “Fantastic! Someone is paying attention. There’s hope for this group after all!”
DV: “But moving along–don’t want to be late for my date with the Dark Lady…”
M1, M2, and M3 perk up.
DV: “…and wouldn’t you love to know who that is–even though it is so obvious! I’m the one who encouraged Toni–in my otherworldly ways–to ask for a refund for something that was not delivered as promised–as no successful person wastes his or her time or money. And I oughta know.”
DV: “It’s time for you all to step up your game. Being an all-volunteer group does not mean eschewing standards. Get out of the Pee Wee League and into the Majors. And if that means rattling feathers of old-thinking folks or usurping the patriarchal hierarchy, so be it. Sometimes you gotta throw a little shade to spread some enlightenment.”
DV: “Switch up your strategy on how to spread the word about me. Concentrate more on modern media–like the visual with Cheryl Eagan-Donovan’s DVD Nothing Is Truer Than Truth. And the aural with Steven Sabel’s Don’t Quill the Messenger podcast. I’m so pleased with both of those!”
“The academic slug fest approach with Stratfordians is not working. It’s too slow and too esoteric. Who cares what academics think? In this current era, they don’t influence society. Embrace the hoi polloi. Let them in on your thinking in a more accessible way. Communicate on their level. Keep the Oxfordian Journal–it’s excellent–especially Volume 21. But that’s plenty of smarty-pants stuff.”
DV: “Remember, I’m watching you. You may be Mucks, but I will not allow you to muck up my good name–or I should say accomplishments. I can screw up my own good name quite well by myself, thank you very much.”
DV: “Lastly, my great-great-great…granddaughter will be at the Hartford Conference. She expects that some of you will punch her in the nose. Not to worry. She can take it. But be warned, she will punch back.”
Lights dim. A spotlight shines on the back wall, illuminating the words Vero Nihil Verius.
The stage fades to black, Tom Petty’s I Won’t Back Down blasts through the theater.
Wild applause.
# THE END #
*********************
P.S. In the words of Rodney King–although about a much larger and more important societal issue–“Can’t we all get along?”
Note from the publisher: If any reader needs a three-minute crash course in what the authorship question is about, check out this video by Haeri Tollefson. Well done, young lady!
https://tinyurl.com/yxv9jb5q
*Thank you, Dawn Fallon.