Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1996 :: March ::
Re: About This List
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0178.  Thursday, 7 March 1996.

(1)     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 06 Mar 1996 16:55:54 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0165  Re: About This List

(2)     From:   Chris Gordon <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 6 Mar 96 18:54:45 -0600
        Subj:   SHK 7.0170 Two mailing lists

(3)     From:   Michael Saenger <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 6 Mar 1996 23:43:46 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   About This List

(4)     From:   Susan Mather <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 7 Mar 1996 12:35:13 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0170   Re: About This List


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 06 Mar 1996 16:55:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 7.0165  Re: About This List
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0165  Re: About This List

>There are whole subject topics on SHAKSPER that are of no interest to me.
>Thankfully Hardy groups posts together under a subject title and I simply
>delete them without reading. Readers of mailing lists have to develop the
>skills to separate what they want from what they don't.
>
>Timothy Reed
>The Upstart Crow Theatre Company
>Boulder, Colorado

This comment seems right on target to me.  If you don't like it, don't read it.
 If you like it a little bit, skim it.  Didn't Bacon write something like that?

Yours, Bill Godshalk

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Chris Gordon <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 6 Mar 96 18:54:45 -0600
Subject: Two mailing lists
Comment:        SHK 7.0170 Two mailing lists

While I respect the many intelligent academic critics writing about
Shakespeare, if this list were limited to their exchanges, I suspect that I
might get rather bored. The delight of SHAKSPER for me has been its variety,
ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous. Yes, some discussions recur, and
some go on for too long perhaps, but as other have pointed out, that's why we
have a delete key. I love the interesting backgrounds and current interests of
all the participants, especially those active in theater. I have always
believed that Shakespeare is for everyone; I think this list should be too.
[And on a slightly different note: Michael Saenger's message refers to anarchy
as "the rule of the loudest"; as someone who considers herself part of a long
anarchist tradition, I suggest he do a little more research on this topic.]

Chris Gordon

(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael Saenger <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 6 Mar 1996 23:43:46 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        About This List

Liberty! freedom! Tyranny is dead!
Run hence, proclaim, cry it about the streets. (JC 3.1.78-79)

A few points:

1) The idea of scholarly quality has nothing to do with "openness" and
"cultural studies," as one person suggested.  African-American journals, for
instance, reject many articles that are not carefully researched. They print
GOOD articles, and so should we.  I happen to be a leftist; politics have
nothing to do with this.

2) What does "good" mean?  In terms of scholarship, it means that the message
is either coming from some one who has spent years educating him/herself, or it
is coming from a person who has worked especially hard crafting that message.

3) How would you like to enrol in a university in which there were no
professors?

4) The delete button.  True, this works, but it requires a lot of extra time to
use it properly.  Many of us do not have that amount of free time.

5) Many of the voices who would support me no longer subscribe to the list.
Does "openness" mean cutting them off?

6) Elitism is exactly what I am trying to combat.  By clogging the list with
discussions of Kenneth Branagh, we have chased the serious scholars off the
list (with a few notable exceptions), leaving them to educate only their small
number of students.  In other words, the very freedom upon which cyberspace
prides itself has given us the euphoria (and the moral self-righteousness) of a
Roman mob.

Yours,
Michael Saenger

(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Susan Mather <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 7 Mar 1996 12:35:13 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 7.0170   Re: About This List
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0170   Re: About This List

I guess I would like to know how "high level" is defined.  Some things on this
list that would appear to some as "high level", to others would appear strange
and far fetched at best.  Shakespeare studies have always had this problem --
some people -- God help them -- say that there is no possible way that a
country boy like William Shakespeare could have written these plays.  I am sure
most have heard this argument.  I guess what I am thinking then is that there
really can be no splitting the line down between high brow/low brow discussions
of Shakespeare without much prejudice.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.