The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1906 Saturday, 19 November 2005
[1] From: Larry Weiss <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 17 Nov 2005 15:34:19 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1901 Dead Horses and Closing Threads
[2] From: John D. Cox <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 17 Nov 2005 16:33:47 -0500
Subj: Dead horses and closing threads
[3] From: Holger Schott Syme <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 17 Nov 2005 17:14:41 -0500
Subj: RE: SHK 16.1901 Dead Horses and Closing Threads
[4] From: Joseph Egert <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 17 Nov 2005 22:29:19 +0000
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1901 Dead Horses and Closing Threads
[5] From: Jack Heller <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 18 Nov 2005 07:51:32 -0500 (EST)
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1901 Dead Horses and Closing Threads
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Weiss <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 17 Nov 2005 15:34:19 -0500
Subject: 16.1901 Dead Horses and Closing Threads
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1901 Dead Horses and Closing Threads
I think it is healthy from time to time to consider the mission
statement of any enterprise, and it is perhaps past time for that to be
done for SHAKSPER.
Mr. Blackie's plea for infinitely ranging scope because list members are
free to disregard any post that bores them would justify all sorts of
spam emails. And it fails to account for the limited time and patience
of our moderator. Fair consideration of his needs as well as our own
mandates a more restrictive approach.
It seems to me that even Hardy's proposal to
>simply to end some discussions earlier than I have done in the past
may not go far enough. Some subjects, like the "authorship
controversy," should be barred at the door.
I suggest that Hardy announce a list of permissible and impermissible
subjects, and simply reject those that don't meet the announced
qualifications. I have given a little thought to the subject and offer
the following for consideration:
Permissible posts (beginning with the most prosaic):
Announcement of relevant job openings
Obituaries of members of the Shakespeare community
Calls for papers
Announcements of forthcoming conferences, seminars, lectures, etc.
ToCs of current journals
Reviews by SHAKSPER members of recent Shakespeare books (published
reviews need not be forwarded)
Reviews by SHAKSPER members of current major Shakespeare productions on
stage or film (published reviews need not be forwarded)
Textual issues, including attribution of portions of canonical works
Critical issues
Biographical and historical issues supported by documentary evidence
which bear on critical issues
Impermissible posts:
The "authorship question"
Reviews of local, provincial and student performances, especially if
they have closed
Allusions to Shakespeare in popular films, TV shows, novels, magazines,
political speeches, etc.
Political observations
Anything involving codes or cryptograms
Crackpot textual theories, especially attributions of apochryphal works
that have not received significant scholarly acceptance
Crackpot critical theories, including spun-out biographies of fictional
characters
Crackpot biographical theories about Shakespeare unsupported by anything
but wishful thinking and faith
There is, deliberately, a lot of room for discretion. But some
guidelines should be apparent. For example, it would be legitimate to
discuss whether WS was a recusant Catholic, but not whether he was a
secret Jew. Obviously, Hardy would have a great deal of discretion and
will certainly not please everyone, nor should he try. Hey, this ain't
a democracy!
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: John D. Cox <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 17 Nov 2005 16:33:47 -0500
Subject: Dead horses and closing threads
I applaud Hardy's decision to close discussions on the listserv earlier.
It's impossible to please everyone, but Holger Syme is certainly right
that SHAKSPER has become less appealing to scholars, because so much
commentary is ill-informed and repetitive. Maybe it's impossible for a
single listserv to be useful to both a popular and academic audience,
but as one who mostly lurks and quickly deletes, I would be grateful to
have shallow and poorly informed commentary brought to a swifter end,
especially if those involved show little or no inclination to read
carefully considered views that have been published elsewhere than on
the listserv.
Best,
John Cox
Hope College
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Holger Schott Syme <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 17 Nov 2005 17:14:41 -0500
Subject: 16.1901 Dead Horses and Closing Threads
Comment: RE: SHK 16.1901 Dead Horses and Closing Threads
Many thanks to Jim Blackie for comparing me to fundamentalists, the Bush
administration, and Fox News: I've been called many things, but that's a
first.
SHAKSPER is not an open forum. Certain topics are explicitly excluded
from the list, and Hardy surely filters out other postings he considers
inappropriate. I am as happy as Jim to trust our moderator. At the same
time, I think it is worth pointing out that just as endless discussions
of the authorship non-issue would kill the list, endless discussions of
Shakespeare's Jewishness, his intentions in _Hamlet_, the backstories of
that play or _The Merchant of Venice_, and assorted other discussions
that proceed in largely evidence-free regions are fruitless, generate a
sense of inertia, and have nothing whatsoever in common with current
academic discussions of the plays, their author(s), or early modern
culture. If that's the sort of listserv you'd like to be a part of,
fine-but it's not the kind of forum SHAKSPER used to be (as Hardy has
pointed out).
Like Jim Blackie, I used to enjoy SHAKSPER as "an active, lively forum
for debate on ideas and new thoughts." The problem is that these days,
there are too few "new" thoughts (and at the risk of sounding "pompous,"
those of us who study Shakespeare for a living-academics and theatre
people alike -- are in a better position to make that judgment-that's
why this list is moderated by a professional specialist!), and there's
far too little debate: a genuine discussion needs to consist of more
than four people who reiterate their unalterable and well-known opinions
over and again.
Finally, I can't see what's remarkable or deplorable about my
"willingness to point to specific topics as beneath [me]." Of course I'm
willing to say what in particular I find objectionable-otherwise I'd be
simply indulging in meaningless generalities. For Jim Blackie's benefit,
let me make a more general point, though: practically all the threads I
find objectionable share a set of common characteristics. They all
sooner or later wind up as a discussion among the same predictable
members of the list; they almost never yield new insights but revert to
previously stated positions, no matter where they started from (that's
possibly my major gripe: even initially interesting threads all too
often develop rapidly into the same old pseudo-debates); they almost all
circle around theories that aren't based on textual evidence (or at
least not on evidence produced by methods anyone who deals with these
texts professionally would find acceptable), and frequently speak of
literary characters as though they were real people (to use another
insultingly specific example, cf. the current "discussion" of _The
Merchant of Venice_); and they usually treat issues that have already
been discussed extensively either on the listserv or in print (usually
not within the last 25 years or so). In other words, these threads make
no worthwhile contribution to the study of Shakespeare and his times.
To be perfectly clear, I don't think only academics or theatre
professionals are able to make such contributions; that would be a
ridiculous attitude. But I do think that a list like this should be
mindful of current and past debates, and such debates usually take place
among people who study Shakespeare professionally. I don't care if my
interlocutors have an academic affiliation; but I prefer informed
discussions over conversations in which basic principles need to be
established constantly and repeatedly.
All the best,
Holger Syme
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Egert <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 17 Nov 2005 22:29:19 +0000
Subject: 16.1901 Dead Horses and Closing Threads
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1901 Dead Horses and Closing Threads
Jim Blackie, responding to Professor Syme's call "to improve things" on
the List, argues rather for continuation "as it exists."
I'm in tune with Brother Blackie's cri du coeur, yet agree
half-heartedly with Prof. Syme as well. Why not let the threads peter
out on their own, so that any thread without posts on say two successive
posting days would automatically terminate? Hence, both "Railed Stage"
and "Lear's Illegitimate Son" would continue for those interested,
barring obsessive repetition within the thread by the same poster.
Admission to the List should give the posters tenure. Hardy would
intervene only if the admitting rules of the List were violated
(obscenity, etc.) or where obsessive repetition prevailed. Let Hardy try
this approach for a few weeks, testing whether threads would spool on
infinitely or not.
At the same time, I'd urge Prof. Syme to contain any Procrustean
impulses to prune away the non-academic exegetes from the List and
thereby reduce its vocabulary to scholastic Newspeak (sorry, Professor,
I couldn't resist). In a tardy unposted missive on the Lear thread, I
noted Coke's policy toward illegitimacy and would have most welcomed
Prof. Syme's elucidation in response. Yet we have both been denied a
public airing.
At least think about it, Hardy.
A fellow groundling,
Joe Egert
[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jack Heller <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 18 Nov 2005 07:51:32 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 16.1901 Dead Horses and Closing Threads
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1901 Dead Horses and Closing Threads
Three thoughts on this discussion:
1) There was a time when we were all non-academic or
not-quite-professional Shakespeareans. Then, for most of us came a time
when what we found in his works merited a hearing of our evidence and
conclusions. I don't mind a certain amount of indulgence shown to
developing scholars.
2) The list sometimes gets postings from members who live in countries
where English is not a significant first language. Sometimes their
inquiries would seem rudimentary, but I would like to see some more
generosity when their libraries may not hold the same resources that a
US, British, Canadian, or Australian citizen may access.
3) On the other hand, volume of discourse cannot, by itself, demand
affirmation. Postings persist and vanity publications are touted despite
any number of efforts to show where their ideas are flawed-and good
academics do expect their own ideas to be critiqued. I find it is hardly
possible to discuss Hamlet (Measure for Measure, Merchant of Venice)
anymore on this list without the discussion being taken over by marginal
or non-academics with axes to grind. For the most part, I have decided
privately to give up responding to some individuals because doing so
would be like fighting the tar baby. It is just not worth the effort.
Jack Heller
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
