Lynne Kositsky sent the following separate response to the O’Brien YWES review.
Roger Stritmatter and I are thrilled that Shellagh O’Brien from the University of Queensland has given us a fair and honest review of our book on The Tempest in The Year’s Work in English Studies. We’ve never before, as far as we’re aware, had a positive response from an orthodox reviewer.
However, we were a bit taken aback that O’Brien felt the need to impose a standard of “definitive evidence” on our inquiry. Few matters in the humanities, especially those involving early modern studies, approach a standard of “definitive” evidence. What our book does show, definitively in our view, is that the old traditions of a 1611 Tempest are no longer viable premises for further inquiry, not only for the reasons summarized in her review, but for many others that she does not include in her summary.
We were also somewhat disappointed that she did not deal with what we consider the preponderance of evidence, as presented in our book, that the play was originally written for a Shrovetide performance before or during1603.
Nevertheless, we are pleased that she read and reported on our book with intelligence and clarity.