Abstract
‘@Shakespeare: Trying to keep incognito with #WSCongress16 in town. If a scholar sees me I just say, “Hullo, lovely to meet you. I’m Peter Holland”/@TwasFletcher: Tell them you’re Me!’ (1 August 2016). This article looks at the anonymously-managed @Shakespeare account and its performance of Shakespeare’s authority on social media, in the context of the parody bot account @TwasFletcher. I argue that authority is established and performed by @Shakespeare through interaction with other authoritative accounts, literary in-jokes, engagement with academic conferences, and, most crucially, anonymity. The destabilising or undermining of Shakespeare’s online authority as performed by @TwasFletcher, is especially significant for its lack of anonymity: created by Hofstra University professor and associate dean Vimala C. Pasupathi, @TwasFletcher raises questions about how scholars who are not white, cis-het men make space for themselves within the authority commanded by Shakespeare, especially online. By inserting Fletcher into Shakespeare, Pasupathi herself performs authority in opposition to Shakespeare and the dominant idea of who a Shakespeare scholar should be or what s/he should do. This essay will therefore argue that two meanings of “authority”—recognized as true or valid on the one hand, and domineering, autocratic, or imposing on the other—play out through the relationship between @Shakespeare and @TwasFletcher on Twitter.
Highlights
Twitter represents part of what Stephen O’Neill calls ‘a surfeit of Shakespeares’ (O’Neill2018, p. 121) in the digital age, offering us a smorgasbord of adaptations, appropriations, avatars, re-imaginings, and transformations with which to engage
This essay will argue that two meanings of “authority”—recognized as true or valid on the one hand, and domineering, autocratic, or imposing on the other—play out through the relationship between @Shakespeare and
In examining Shakespeare’s relationship to @Shakespeare—and, Fletcher’s relationship to @TwasFletcher—I find the work of fan and fan fiction studies instructive
Summary
Twitter represents part of what Stephen O’Neill calls ‘a surfeit of Shakespeares’ Jernigan’s digitised body—together with the treated, though anonymous, female specimen—becomes a gateway for Saco’s insightful work on cyberspace, democracy, and the ethics of the digital She argues that ‘cyberspace’, in many ways, ‘redefines the body as abject, as meat’ Jr. reminded us in his Shakespeare Association of America Color of Membership plenary in 2017, objectivity is often a luxury afforded only to white scholars, whose issues are assumed to be universal—in the same way, perhaps, that Shakespeare’s plays are seen to address universal. As Sharma, Nakamura, and others have argued, the ‘global village’ of the internet is not a neutral clean slate, but rather inheres the prejudices of those who built it.7 These same politics are at work even when the creator of content online is unknown: on Twitter, anonymity, remaining or seeming to be invisible can confer power. There are a number of famous and infamous examples, from author Elena Ferrante to frustrated teenage football fan Sam Gardiner.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
