The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1855 Thursday, 7 October 2004
From: Bill Arnold <
Date: Wednesday, 6 Oct 2004 19:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 15.1839 Modified Procedures
Comment: Re: SHK 15.1839 Modified Procedures
Stuart Hampton-Reeves writes, "I must reply briefly to Bill Arnold. I
never accused Charles of libel or anything else. I hope it was clear
that my remarks were about general issues raised by the recent
Well, you could've fooled me. Personally, I have been concerned with
the reaction of our noble moderator, and wanted to allay his concerns,
of a personal nature. And legal, as well. Apparently, we have a number
of lawyers on board. More anon, below."
Larry Weiss writes, "Enough already about libel law. Bill Arnold's
impressions are overly simplistic and, therefore, inaccurate."
OK: Larry, wise us up, then.
Charles Weinstein writes, "It is neither clear, consistent, nor
comprehensive, but elaboration will have to wait."
Well, well, well. What, in heaven's name, is the *antecedent* to "It"
in the above sentence, Charles? And seeing as you *were* the
provocateur in all this, Monsieur, why should we wait? This weighty
matter needs no under-the-rug sweeping, but clear resolution! Fire away.
Stephen Dobbin writes, "Bill Arnold gives us a very precise summary of
U.S. libel issues. But why on earth does he dub Stuart Hampton-Reeves
Not according to wise Larry, above, I haven't. But then, my dozen years
in the American journalism trenches holds no sway with Monsieur Larry
As to my resorting to "Monsieur" as a tag to my respondents, I guess you
have to read *Tropic of Cancer*! Or read some Baudelaire. Or guess why
gentlemen wear/wore white gloves.
Another thing: this is a list of *scholarship* and I dare say that
ladies and gentlemen ought to engage in reasonable discussion without
resorting to P.C. concerns--as the basis of scholarship is, ultimately,
seeking truth and certainty. And, yes, I know that facts rule the day
when it comes to the question of libel. But for heaven's sake, having
worked in the trenches and dealt with celebrity stories for a decade, I
know that public figures cannot hide from commentary. And we all know
or should know that actors are public figures when they strut the
boards, agreed? And reviews, news stories, parodies or satire aka David
letterman-style, as well as commentary aka Op-Ed or opinionated verbiage
aka the French, who just *love* to speak their minds, have historically
been savored by Shakespeareans the world over.
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
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.