View Single Post
  #21  
Old 04-14-2016, 10:41 AM
Fretful Porpentine Fretful Porpentine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Bohemia. A seacoast.
Posts: 6,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjepson View Post
A request for clarification: Are you asking for:

(a) respected scholars who
(b) have something that is widely considered a crank belief and
(c) have publications supporting that belief in peer-reviewed journals?

If so, I'm not sure there's anyone who meets all three criteria... if a belief is truly considered "crank" by most peers (as specified in your thread title), then it seems to me that, by definition, it's not likely to get past a peer review.
In Stritmatter's case, my understanding is that his peer reviewed publications tend to be "stealth Oxfordianism"; for example, one of the obstacles to Oxford's authorship is that he died in 1604, and at least ten of Shakespeare's plays are generally agreed to have been written after that date. So Stritmatter's modus operandi is to argue for an earlier date for one of these works in a peer-reviewed journal (an idea that most mainstream Shakespeare scholars might consider unlikely, but not inherently nutty), without directly arguing that somebody other than Shakespeare wrote it -- and then make the Oxford connection in a non-peer-reviewed venue. Or to argue in a peer-reviewed venue that a passage in Shakespeare alludes to a particular Biblical passage -- a mainstream, non-controversial argument in itself -- and then point out on his website that this passage is underlined in Oxford's personal copy of the Bible.