Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2003 :: October ::
Early Modern Literary Studies: 9.2
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.2023  Friday, 17 October 2003

[1]     From:   D Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 16 Oct 2003 11:04:38 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 14.2012 Early Modern Literary Studies: 9.2

[2]     From:   Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 16 Oct 2003 17:57:21 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.2012 Early Modern Literary Studies: 9.2


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           D Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 16 Oct 2003 11:04:38 -0500
Subject: 14.2012 Early Modern Literary Studies: 9.2
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.2012 Early Modern Literary Studies: 9.2

Jonathan Hope on "Academic publishing:

"So, if I read Richard Burt right, I have insufficiently theorised the
current situation, while Don Bloom thinks a little basic economics will
help me.  Thanks for taking the time to answer guys.  How foolish of Al
Magary to supply us with some links to people who are actually trying to
do something about it."

Dunno about either the basic economics or the help. Hate to sound like
some kind of right-wing ultra-capitalist, but my intuitive sense of the
academic publishing racket is that it has grown naturally (or evolved)
into what we now have because it satisfies the basic needs without
excessive complication. Efforts to interfere on rational or moral
grounds with such systems often produce unwelcome results (the needs are
no longer met, or the cost increases radically, or both). If the issue
is a moral one (exploitation of some victimized group), that would need
to be addressed. But if the issue is simply economic -- well, why not
leave it alone?

I heard a story told by one of Artur Rubinstein's children. He was
defining the difference between talent (which he, his siblings and their
mother all had) and genius (which his father had). The mother, a
master-class teacher of piano, was watching her husband play one day and
when he finished, said, "Artur, why are you using that fingering? That's
a terrible fingering." He shrugged and responded, "It voiks."

Cheers,
don

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 16 Oct 2003 17:57:21 +0100
Subject: 14.2012 Early Modern Literary Studies: 9.2
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.2012 Early Modern Literary Studies: 9.2

Jonathan Hope <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 > writes,

>So, if I read Richard Burt right, I have insufficiently theorised the
>current situation, while Don Bloom thinks a little basic economics will
>help me.  Thanks for taking the time to answer guys.  How foolish of Al
>Magary to supply us with some links to people who are actually trying to
>do something about it.

Not to dig too deep into this, it never much annoyed me that I got no
credit for publishing poetry (though it did occasionally irritate me
when it was positively held against me) but there's an interesting spin
in UK academe around the concept of "refereed journals".

Among my admittedly slim academic output were two long (4,000 word)
articles on the Scottish poets Edwin Morgan and D.M.Black.

These were initially published in a poetry magazine (_Akros_) and
republished by a small (poetry) press.

At least nobody ever *complained* about this.  Not that it ever did me
any good, but at least it wasn't held against me.

I suspect that Jonathan Hope, trailing a strath.ac.uk email address <g>
might be a little ... optimistic ... about this.

Strathclyde gave Jim Kelman a first, but other than Steve Mulrine,
nobody but *nobody* before Rob Crawford, who was writing poetry, managed
a first up the Hill.

Gossip.  Sorry.

Robin

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.