Nerd, thanks for taking the time to explain the procedures of academia
so well, and for choosing your words carefully to avoid sounding arrogant, demeaning and pompous. ie -- "It is a requirement in academic research that you express original opinions that no one has expressed before. You don't want ideas that are already held by others, you want ones that will be held by others after they've read your analysis. If you send an article to be published and the ideas in it are already out there, the journal will turn you down. On the other hand, if your interpretations don't square with facts, they'll also turn you down. Credibility in context, not adherence to a party line, is what gets Humanities research published." Amen to that!

Actually, I don't think we disagree about much here at all, except that I really can still enjoy an article or a viewpoint, even if the scholarship is less than pristine. That, however, does not mean that I'm confused about the facts of the matter!

While the scholars argue about the elusive "facts" behind the Robin Hood legends -- if indeed any such "facts" ever existed! -- perhaps the greatest and only "fact" is that the legends do exist, and that they evolve over time, reflecting the ever-changing social conditions, the needs/desires of the people who love them. That certain C20 neo-pagans/scholars have come to deify Robin, even to the point of creating a new spiritual movement through their interpetation of the legends, is a great "fact" in and of itself! One that will no doubt continue to interest and influence many generations of scholars, historians and seekers to come.

daylia