2009

FYI -- The Future of listserv Technology

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0374  Tuesday, 14 July 2009

[1] From:   Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:   Monday, 13 Jul 2009 12:44:02 -0700
     Subj:   Re: SHK 20.0370 FYI  --  The Future of listserv Technology

[2] From:   Ron Severdia <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:   Monday, 13 Jul 2009 13:10:59 -0700
     Subj:   Re: SHK 20.0370 FYI  --  The Future of listserv Technology

[3] From:   John E. Perry <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:   Monday, 13 Jul 2009 22:34:28 -0400
     Subj:   Re: SHK 20.0370 FYI -- The Future of listserv Technology

[4] From:   Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:   Tuesday, July 14, 2009
     Subj:   SHK 20.0370 FYI -- The Future of listserv Technology


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Monday, 13 Jul 2009 12:44:02 -0700
Subject: 20.0370 FYI  --  The Future of listserv Technology
Comment:    Re: SHK 20.0370 FYI  --  The Future of listserv Technology

IINM [if I'm not mistaken -- an abbreviation I just invented] the world 
of communications hasn't known any stability since the development of 
telegraphy. It is constantly producing both novelties for the easily 
amused and revolutionary forms -- sometimes in combination (think 
Twitter in Tehran).

Hardy now has more time to devote to SHAKSPER, and that devotion tells 
in the increased volume and, I think, quality of posts and threads. But 
the tech aspects, especially nonsensical ones like ISP blocking and 
server crashes, are taking too much of Hardy's time. What to do?

Migrate SHAKSPER to a more modern format. One time only it will probably 
be a bear (from which there is no exiting) but it can be one time only. 
Blogging is established. Social networks are established. A congenial 
format for SHAKSPER can be found, and Shakespeare too can both exist and 
thrive in the cloud.

Let's do it.

To start with, Hardy can establish a forum at, say, Google's Blogspot to 
explore and discuss and test the many opportunities. Setting up a blog 
takes but a few minutes. The blog can be limited to SHAKSPER subscribers 
and invited guests. It need have no mention of Shakespeare or any play, 
for that is still the mission of the SHAKSPER listserv.

Let us begin.

Cheers,
Al Magary

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Ron Severdia <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Monday, 13 Jul 2009 13:10:59 -0700
Subject: 20.0370 FYI  --  The Future of listserv Technology
Comment:    Re: SHK 20.0370 FYI  --  The Future of listserv Technology

Thanks for your response, Hardy. I respect your decisions and can 
empathize with your 20-year connection to the list. You've had a clear 
vision and have followed it every step of the way.

However, changing from listserv to something else doesn't mean you have 
to lose control over the look or content posted. In fact, I'd say 
(depending on the choice) you'd gain some control and things that would 
make your life easier. It also doesn't mean that you need to 
disassociate SHAKSPER from yourself. Again, depending on the choice, you 
may actually be even more acknowledged or known. I know it's difficult 
to break out of a 20-year habit from one day to the next and, in my 
experience, when it becomes necessity to act on something it's usually late.

I don't say these things because I just want to criticize you or what 
you've done. In fact, quite the opposite. I'd like to see things 
improve. If you don't currently use Google Groups, I'd recommend you 
check it out in depth (especially the email portions). I'm not 
necessarily suggesting that's the solution for you, but it will give you 
an idea of what can be done.

Cheers,
Ron

[Editor's Note: "I don't say these things because I just want to 
criticize you or what you've done." I understand completely and I 
respect your writing to express your ideas about ways that SHAKSPER can 
be improved. MORE BELOW. -Hardy]

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       John E. Perry <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Monday, 13 Jul 2009 22:34:28 -0400
Subject: 20.0370 FYI -- The Future of listserv Technology
Comment:    Re: SHK 20.0370 FYI -- The Future of listserv Technology

Ron Severdia writes,

 >The days of listserv are numbered. The social networks are only one
 >element of many that has already replaced it. The others are discussion
 >groups and forums like Google Groups and Yahoo Groups, which allow for
 >online discussion as well as the same email exchanges listserv provides
 >(not to mention any modern forum software will do the same, allowing
 >users to subscribe to specific topics of interest). Users are demanding
 >more and more that their preferred content be served up when, where, and
 >primarily HOW they want it. ...

But, Ron, listserv is exactly how I want it. I'm subscribed to a couple 
of fora, and I rarely sign in to them, because they're so much extra 
trouble for _me_.

Newsgroups are more freewheeling lists, and have corresponding defects. 
  If they are moderated, the moderator manages the spam and intrusions 
of all sorts, just as Hardy manages all this for us. If they're not, 
spam and a few inconsiderate clods can ruin them (example: 
sci.electronics.design, which is now worthless for its nominal purpose).

As for banning, some newsgroups are also banned. That's not a defect of 
lists, but of inappropriately configured filter software. And as for 
filtering, I can't comment on the Microsoft stuff since I've used linux 
for decades, and Thunderbird for years, but all the mail clients I'm 
familiar with allow me to filter mail messages based on almost any 
criteria I choose.

A particular advantage of lists is that the moderator can format 
digests, so I can see what I want to see (let's leave aside for the 
moment that I actually look at nearly every message -- thanks, Hardy, 
for a stellar job) in related groups, in one inclusive message. Many 
list servers will automatically generate digests, and limited formatting 
is available based on the moderator's configuration selections. I'm not 
aware of any forum that features email digests, or user-configured 
filtering. Granted, I not aware of any fora that are banned, but it's 
quite possible.

I like very much having one place (my mail client) to come to and read 
my personal mail, my professional mail, and my hobby and other interest 
mail. Having to log into a bunch of fora is a hassle I don't want to put 
up with, and it takes a truly pressing interest (along with a lack of 
other means of community communication) to induce me to put up with it. 
I look at blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and all such the same way.

 >Those who have their proverbial heads in the sand should consider
 >embracing change as an evolution and progress, rather than an
 >inconvenience.

Change can be good. Change can be bad. Bad change can be fixed 
(usually). Good change can be ruined (and often is). We all decide what 
we want and how we want to get to it. I echo wholeheartedly Hardy's 
statement that "those who are interested in the features that Ron has to 
offer will register at PlayShakespeare.com just as those who are 
interested in discussing the "authorship question" can do so somewhere 
else." I won't be among them.

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Subject: FYI -- The Future of listserv Technology
Comment:    SHK 20.0370 FYI -- The Future of listserv Technology

Many points have been brought up in today's posts and in private ones I 
have received. I was preparing to address these points individually, but 
I realized that they was no need for me to be defensive and verbose. So 
let me give less comprehensive responses to some of these issues, both 
pro and con.

1. Other technologies are free

This point is an enticing one since I have been paying all of what has 
been required to keep this list operating for many years, and these cost 
are considerable.

[FYI: When we do set up the new site -- I am seriously considering 
finally becoming a corporation (either not for profit or for profit, and 
I will probably pay a lawyer to complete the paper work for me since I 
have little patience for legal documents, which normally give me 
migraines.) Becoming a corporation will enable me to be able to accept 
donations -- I don't think that I would ever REQUIRE subscribers to pay 
for the SHAKSPER services; but I have just retired, and I do not feel as 
money-is-no-object generous as I once did. Having something additional 
coming in to help with expenses would be nice.]

2. A number of subscribers have written to me saying they preferred 
having e-mail delivery of the SHAKSPER digests than having to sign in to 
an Internet site as some methods require.

3. Technological difficulties. Having my PC crash could happen to 
anyone; the blocking incidents have been more infuriating to me.

4. Automatic formatting: I have worked hard establishing a look and feel 
for plain text (ASCII) digests -- formatting that I hope creates for 
readers a familiarity they are comfortable with -- and I have not found 
an alternative I am happy with.

5. Blogging, Google Group, Social Networking, or Newsgroups: I simply 
prefer my creating digests to any alternative I have found.

6. Change: I have given much thought to changing to another format, but 
I have decided against doing so. Many members are perfectly happy with 
current arrangement (John Perry's post was just one of many I received). 
With the current arrangements, I can and do give individual attention to 
member needs in ways that I have not found possible with alternatives.

7. Ron Severdia wrote, "I know it's difficult to break out of a 20-year 
habit from one day to the next . . ."

Yes, I have had a life-long struggle with dependency addiction issues 
and with my delusional belief in my ability to control things. I have, 
as a result of my studying of eastern thought in particular Buddhist 
philosophy and Taoism, recently had an epiphany in this regard, 
recognizing that I have no control after all. Nevertheless, right now, I 
simply have no desire to change.

Hardy M. Cook
Editor of SHAKSPER

[PS: A heads up: I am planning to attend over the next few months 
several workshops, retreats, conferences, at the Omega Institute that 
will blessedly take me away from all my concerns for a week or more at a 
time. -HMC]


_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

When Researching in London

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0373  Tuesday, 14 July 2009

From:       Arthur Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Monday, 13 Jul 2009 19:11:05 +0100
Subject: 20.0368 When Researching in London
Comment:    Re: SHK 20.0368 When Researching in London

 >Three of us stayed for the month of May 2009 at Endsleigh Court
 >Apartments on Woburn Place, just off Russell Square and very near the
 >British Museum. It was  two blocks from Euston Station where a small
 >Marks and Spencer grocery store provided everything we needed for
 >cooking in and avoiding the exorbitant restaurant prices. We had a
 >comfortable room with small kitchen and private bath for $120 a day
 >total for the three of us. If you choose this, arrange for an apartment
 >that does not face the street, to avoid the street noises.


I quite agree. My wife and I used Endsleigh as a home from home for 
years. By all means, as Louis says, ask for a room away from the street 
and, preferably, up a couple of floors. There's a small shopping centre 
a couple of blocks away in the direction of the Russell Square tube. 
And, of course, the British Lib is three blocks away.

Arthur


_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

SBReview_4: Margreta de Grazia's _Hamlet without

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0371  Tuesday, 14 July 2009

From:       Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Subject:    SBReview_4: Margreta de Grazia's _Hamlet without Hamlet_

SBReview_4:

Margreta de Grazia. _Hamlet without Hamlet_. Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press, 2007. ISBN 0521870259; xii + 267 pp. US$101 
(hardcover) $39 (paperback)

Reviewed by David Richman, University of New Hampshire

"Landless in Elsinore"

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are the first of a seemingly endless line 
of critics who ignore Hamlet's warning and try to pluck out the heart of 
the Prince's mystery. As one contemplates what Coleridge and Schlegel, 
Bradley and Freud, Lacan, Derrida, and Bloom have wrought, one is moved 
to ask Oscar Wilde's question: are the commentators on _Hamlet_ mad or 
only pretending to be?

In her always enlightening and often entertaining book, Margreta de 
Grazia summarizes and assesses the modern critical tradition, beginning 
two centuries after Shakespeare's old-fashioned play first took the 
stage and still very much with us. She makes a sweeping claim, and she 
strongly supports it in a series of interlinked essays. Her contention 
is that the Hamlet created by modern philosophers and critics, 
psychologically disturbed, phallically deprived, Oedipally repressed, 
exemplar of modern subjectivity, type and symbol of modern 
consciousness, draws attention away from Shakespeare's great and complex 
historical tragedy. For Hamlet to appear modern, she argues, the premise 
of _Hamlet_ must drop out of sight.

Margreta de Grazia's achievement in this book is brilliantly to restore 
the play's premise to the attention of post-modern readers and 
audiences. The book's central chapters copiously illustrate the argument 
that _Hamlet_ is a play about the loss of land, the fall of empire, the 
tragic extinction of a royal line. The play begins with the threat of 
invasion and ends in military occupation. In scene after scene, 
characters fight over the possession of dirt   --   and these scenes 
climax in the fifth-act grapple in the grave. "Like the 
play-within-the-play, the plot of the play is driven by the desire for a 
plot" (36). Drawing upon her vast and deep knowledge of intellectual, 
social and political history, law, and scripture, de Grazia makes clear 
that loss of land amounts to loss of identity. If the dispossessed 
Prince speaks clearly, he will be guilty of high treason, so he is 
constrained to use the jesting riddles and ambiguities   --   to put on 
the feigned madness that disguises his real subversion. Hamlet's 
obsession with his mother, made so much of by Freud, Jones, Lacan, and 
their disciples, makes better sense when one considers, as de Grazia 
leads us to consider, that Gertrude "imperial jointress" embodies quite 
literally the present possession of the kingdom. The Prince's loss of 
his patrimony tells us far more about the character than do the 
thousands of pages about the modern metaphysical Hamlet and his mental 
diseases. De Grazia expatiates on her argument that patrimony is not all 
that Hamlet loses. By play's end, the royal line of Denmark will be 
extinct, and that tragic extinction will be embodied in Ophelia's corpse 
and reinforced by references to Alexander, Caesar, and even to the 
stand-off between Luther and the Holy Roman Emperor. "Your worm is your 
only emperor of diet."

This summary only hints at, and does not do justice to, de Grazia's 
book. Her erudition is matched by a precise sensitivity to the changing 
meanings of complex words. Her readers will never again hear words like 
"modern," "romantic," "mole," "mother, matter, matrix," "doom, domain," 
"human, humus" in quite the same way. "Flesh and earth repeatedly 
coalesce through overlaps of sound and sense, as they do in the name of 
the first man, called after not his father but the dust from which he 
was fashioned, _adamah_, the Hebrew word for clay"(3). "Doomsday 
conjoins domain and doom, land and judgment, a pairing that twice recurs 
when land and law appear as textual alternatives" (5.)  Even the play's 
title and the eponymous hero's name slip into a second meaning. " . . . 
it is tempting to connect the landless Hamlet with the humble unit of 
land whose name he shares. A hamlet is a diminutive ham, the Saxon word 
for a settlement, often marked off by a ditch, with too few dwellings to 
warrant a church" (44).

Time and again, de Grazia opens possibilities suggested by the play's 
three early texts   --   possibilities often foreclosed by modern 
editorial conflations. That Hamlet leaps into Ophelia's grave is 
suggested by a stage direction in the so-called "bad Quarto," but that 
indecorous leap is denied by many critics and even a few stage 
directors. "Granville-Barker's claim that only Laertes leaps into the 
grave was much welcomed; it spared Hamlet the undignified leap" (151). 
De Grazia's dazzling reading of the fight in the grave, figuring forth 
all those fights over land so central to the play, demonstrates that she 
is always alive to the play's use of theatrical resources: props, 
costumes, and bodies hurtling through stage space. In her penetrating 
analyses of the play's action and language, especially the zaniness 
after Hamlet's encounter with the ghost and the frenzy in the grave, de 
Grazia does not diminish Hamlet's many-sided, always compelling 
character, but she puts that character back into the plot and the world 
from which so many modern critics have sought to extract him.

Not every reader will agree with everything de Grazia says, and I 
suspect each reader will find something to disagree with. Hamlet, for 
example, can speak the phrase "robustious, periwig-pated fellow" as 
quietly as may be, even though he indisputably ignores his own advice to 
the players by tearing the occasional passion to tatters. Other faults 
of the book may be due to the form in which de Grazia, and all of us, 
are constrained to write. The book does suffer from some repetition. 
Matter in the first chapter is repeated in the last, and each chapter 
has a few langeurs. I found the first third of the chapter on Hamlet's 
delay tedious going because, like de Grazia, I do not think delay is the 
play's most necessary question, and I wish she had dispatched her 
summary of what so many critics have made of that question in fewer 
pages. Writing this review for an electronic list, I must wonder whether 
the book-length study is the best form. _Hamlet without Hamlet_ might 
have been more effective if it were thirty or forty pages shorter, but 
at that length, it might have been too long for an article and too short 
for a book   --   especially a book at this price. The book, graced with 
nineteen illustrations, may be beyond the price range of most readers. 
Amazon.com lists the hardcover at $101, and the paperback at $39.

But every library ought to own this book. Most of the thousands of books 
and articles on _Hamlet_ concentrate on the Prince; De Grazia is one of 
the few who follow Dover Wilson in looking at what happens in the play. 
She does not mention Brecht by name, but she performs the Brechtian 
maneuver of causing us to look at something we thought we knew in a 
fresh light. After reading her book, we find that _Hamlet_ is a richer, 
deeper, more important play.

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

Othello's Handkerchief

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0372  Tuesday, 14 July 2009

[1] From:   Jacob Goldberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:   Monday, 13 Jul 2009 16:41:18 -0700
     Subj:   Re: SHK 20.0369 Othello's Handkerchief

[2] From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:   Monday, 13 Jul 2009 13:36:28 -0400
     Subj:   Re: SHK 20.0369 Othello's Handkerchief

[3] From:   Scott Oldenburg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:   Monday, 13 Jul 2009 10:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
     Subj:   Re: SHK 20.0369 Othello's Handkerchief

[4] From:   Susan St. John <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:   Monday, 13 Jul 2009 18:53:51 -0700
     Subj:   re: SHK 20.0369 Othello's Handkerchief


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Jacob Goldberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Monday, 13 Jul 2009 16:41:18 -0700
Subject: 20.0369 Othello's Handkerchief
Comment:    Re: SHK 20.0369 Othello's Handkerchief

When Emilia found the handkerchief, the magic handkerchief, on the 
floor, where Desdemona had accidentally dropped it, she obviously had no 
respect for the supernatural powers attributed to it by Othello.

During the scene, in which Othello rants and raves about those powers.

                               That handkerchief
    Did an Egyptian to my mother give;
    She was a charmer, and could almost read
    The thoughts of people. She told her, while she kept it,
    'Twould make her amiable and subdue my father
    Entirely to her love, but if she lost it
    Or made a gift of it, my father's eye
    Should hold her loathed and his spirits should hunt
    After new fancies. She dying gave it me,
    And bid me, when my fate would have me wive,
    To give it her. I did so, and take heed on't;
    Make it a darling like your precious eye;
    To lose't or give't away were such perdition
    As nothing else could match.

Emilia sits in a corner of the room and hears every word. Yet, in the 
last act, she describes the handkerchief as a trifle.

    That handkerchief thou speak'st of
    I found by fortune and did give my husband,
    For often with a solemn earnestness,
    More than indeed belong'd to such a trifle

After Othello leaves the room, Emilia tries to console Desdemona, and 
asks, Is not this man jealous?

To which, Desdemona replies, I ne'er saw this before.

    Sure there's some wonder in this handkerchief;
    I am most unhappy in the loss of it.

Desdemona is beginning to see a "magic" handkerchief.

Emilia, however, although having witnessed the violent attack by Othello 
upon Desdemona, and Desdemona's distress at the loss of the 
handkerchief, (a "trifle", as Emilia would later call it), can only ask, 
disingenuously, Is not this man jealous?

Iago was the cause of Desdemona's murder by Othello, and of Othello's 
suicide, both of whom were innocent victims. Did Shakespeare think that 
Emilia earned her fate?

Jacob Goldberg

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Monday, 13 Jul 2009 13:36:28 -0400
Subject: 20.0369 Othello's Handkerchief
Comment:    Re: SHK 20.0369 Othello's Handkerchief

Brian Willis makes a good point about the slipperiness of hearsay 
statements; i.e., it is possible that either Othello's mother or the 
Egyptian who gave her the handkerchief had embellished the truth and 
Othello was taken in by that. But Brian spoils his point by seeming to 
conclude from this that Othello must have believed the story. Hearsay is 
particularly unreliable because of the multiple levels at which 
fabrication or error can creep into the narrative and the extreme 
difficulty (frequently, impossibility) of testing the truth. One of 
those levels is the veracity of the witness (in this case, Othello), who 
might fabricate the story, report a story that he himself does not 
believe, or believe a story that the declarant made up or did not 
herself believe. Brian assumes the last of these, but there is no basis 
upon which to make that assumption.

Louis Swilley points out that Othello is likely to be the source of the 
fanciful story as he has a history of telling such tall tales. Of 
course, there are such things as cannibals. As for men whose heads grow 
beneath their shoulders, I am under the impression that this was a 
common belief at the time, so it would not be understood by 
Shakespeare's audience as a far-fetched tale.

The best of these close readings is Julia Griffin's. She points out that 
Othello himself tells two inconsistent stories about the handkerchief, 
with the one he tells everyone other than Desdemona being a quite common 
event, but which explains why he cherishes the handkerchief without 
having to imbue it with magical properties.

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Scott Oldenburg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Monday, 13 Jul 2009 10:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 20.0369 Othello's Handkerchief
Comment:    Re: SHK 20.0369 Othello's Handkerchief

Phil Collington has very good article on this very topic, "Othello the 
Liar" in The Mysterious and the Foreign in Early Modern England, edited 
by Helen Ostovitch, Mary Silcox, and Graham Roebuck.

Also, could it also be that Othello's inability to keep his story 
straight reflects his own mental breakdown?

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Susan St. John <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Monday, 13 Jul 2009 18:53:51 -0700
Subject: 20.0369 Othello's Handkerchief
Comment:    re: SHK 20.0369 Othello's Handkerchief

I am so very grateful to everyone for their responses to this query. I 
am, of course, approaching the question from an acting/directing 
standpoint, so I do look at Othello as a real person who chooses to do 
what he does for a reason.

Several people have made excellent points, but Julia Griffin has raised 
an important point:

 >Othello tells two stories about the handkerchief, which seem
 >incompatible: first, to Desdemona, that an Egyptian charmer gave it to
 >his mother, as a piece of aphrodisiac magic; second, to everyone else,
 >that it was an antique token his father gave his mother -- an ordinary
 >love gift.

This makes it seem that the story of magic is made up. However, if it's 
fabricated (pun intended), this makes Othello a dissembler (as Louis 
Swilley was pointing out). If we believe Othello is devious and lies for 
his own purposes, doesn't that make him as bad as Iago?  If the story IS 
true, why didn't he tell her when he first gave it to her?  The only 
answer I have there is because the magic wouldn't work if she knew about 
it!  But that also makes it look like he is pulling a deception on her, 
and lessens the truth of his love.

The other question that comes to mind is, when exactly did he give it to 
her?  It is clearly stated that it's the first token he gave to her, 
making it sound like it is one gift among many that followed, but when 
describing the magic he says he gave it to her when he knew he would 
"wive" her. The inconsistencies here combine to make me believe he makes 
up the story to trap her.

However, whether the story is true or not, the only outcome of his 
telling her is so that she will admit she lost it (or gave it away), 
thus essentially confirming the end of their relationship, or she will 
deny having lost it (or having given it away), thereby lying to him and 
proving herself to be a dissembler, which will bring about the end of 
their relationship.

By telling her the story at all he is condemning her (damned if she did 
and damned if she didn't). He already believes Iago's version anyway, so 
forcing her into this no-win situation becomes the device for him to 
justify killing her.

Thank you again for your thoughts on this subject,
Susan St. John


_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

FYI -- The Future of listserv Technology

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0370  Monday, 13 July 2009

[1] From:   Steve Roth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:   Friday, 10 Jul 2009 07:46:13 -0700
     Subj:   Re: SHK 20.0360 FYI  --  The Future of listserv Technology

[2] From:   Mari Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:   Thursday, 9 Jul 2009 18:26:12 -0400
     Subj:   Re: SHK 20.0360 FYI  --  The Future of listserv Technology

[3] From:   Ron Severdia <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:   Friday, 10 Jul 2009 12:01:31 -0700
     Subj:   Re: SHK 20.0360 FYI  --  The Future of listserv Technology

[4] From:   Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
     Date:   Monday, July 13, 2009
     Subj:   The Future of listserv Technology: Update


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Steve Roth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Friday, 10 Jul 2009 07:46:13 -0700
Subject: 20.0360 FYI  --  The Future of listserv Technology
Comment:    Re: SHK 20.0360 FYI  --  The Future of listserv Technology

I would only like to respond to one comment here, from Thomas Le:

 >Blogs are musings of individuals who know they do not have to exercise
 >restraint and self-control or caution that an academic lister does. There
 >is no control of topics or participants.

This simply isn't true. There are thousands of academics using blogs in 
an extremely responsible and illuminating manner, there are very 
high-level discussions ongoing in many blogs' comment threads, blog 
software provides all the control over topics or participants that a 
moderator might wish to exert, and I would add that blogs provide 
advanced, well worked-out tools to manage the whole process without the 
many technical difficulties that I, at least, find it quite painful to 
see Hardy dealing with quite constantly.

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Mari Bonomi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Thursday, 9 Jul 2009 18:26:12 -0400
Subject: 20.0360 FYI  --  The Future of listserv Technology
Comment:    Re: SHK 20.0360 FYI  --  The Future of listserv Technology

Hardy comments sadly,

 >If listserv technology is dying as a means for delivering worthwhile
 >content is it in part because of overzealous anti-spamming technology
 >whose protocols are falsely "blacklisting" mass mailings from listserv
 >servers.

Perhaps it is time for several key SHAKSPER people (certainly Hardy and 
Eric but possibly 1-3 others who serve on one or more of the "editorial" 
boards noted in Hardy's post) to request some sort of real or virtual 
meeting w/ the honchos from Trend Micro and the other major perpetrators 
of the "we won't bother verifying; we'll just block this listserv" 
attacks. They need to hear directly from you folks about why they're 
doing something so egregiously wrong.

In fact, a starting place might be to determine a contact person at each 
of these companies and send to them copies of several of your essays 
about SHAKSPER and the internet, Hardy. I'm guessing these people are 
intelligent and educated enough actually to process and grasp what 
SHAKSPER is, if given the information.

It can't *hurt* and it might help.

The other thing that might help is if you still have the email addresses 
that were deleted because of bouncebacks. Establish a GMail account in 
the name of SHAKSPER and Hardy Cook (like SHAKSPER-HardyCook!) and send 
out emails to these people explaining the bounceback and letting them 
know you want to get them back to our listserv conversations. Such 
emails can be sent in batches of 4-5 by several people connected with 
SHAKSPER who can be given the password to the GMail account. I say GMail 
b/c I've never had my emails from GMail blocked, so far as I can determine.

Mari Bonomi

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Ron Severdia <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Friday, 10 Jul 2009 12:01:31 -0700
Subject: 20.0360 FYI  --  The Future of listserv Technology
Comment:    Re: SHK 20.0360 FYI  --  The Future of listserv Technology

The days of listserv are numbered. The social networks are only one 
element of many that has already replaced it. The others are discussion 
groups and forums like Google Groups and Yahoo Groups, which allow for 
online discussion as well as the same email exchanges listserv provides 
(not to mention any modern forum software will do the same, allowing 
users to subscribe to specific topics of interest). Users are demanding 
more and more that their preferred content be served up when, where, and 
primarily HOW they want it. They want to customized the frequency and 
depth of their involvement (usually due to time constraints in this busy 
world of ours)-not to mention the ability to apply various "noise 
filters" to reduce or eliminate "junk." I don't mean that in the sense 
of spam, but in unwanted content-increasing the signal to noise ratio, 
so to speak-where the users get to set that level/ratio based on their 
preferences. The inability of listserv to adapt to the way content is 
currently ingested and life's inevitable course of change is the key to 
its demise. The technology is antiquated-in some parts so much that 
certain spam-detection algorithms will always assume it's spam unless 
some very specific manual tweaking is conducted.

Those who have their proverbial heads in the sand should consider 
embracing change as an evolution and progress, rather than an 
inconvenience. I've made several offers to help this list overcome these 
challenges and make it competitive with current technologies, but my 
offers haven't shown any interest. With our site rapidly approaching 
3,000 registered users from all walks of life-university professors, 
high-school students, directors, actors, etc.-it's an example of how a 
Shakespeare resource can grow larger than a 20-year old resource in just 
2 years.

I hope that SHAKSPER continues to grow, evolve, and prosper well into 
the future. It's a great resource. But I'm afraid that, without some 
technology improvements, that won't happen.

Best,
Ron Severdia
PlayShakespeare.com

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:       Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Monday, July 13, 2009
Subject:    The Future of listserv Technology: Update

Dear SHAKSPEReans,

I managed finally to get in touch with a living person rather than 
playing the Internet equivalent of telephone tag with automatic-response 
computer-generated messages. Once I got to a person rather than a 
computer, I was able to convince the person that the "blocking" was a 
"false positive" and that protocols that create "false positives" are 
ultimately bad for business. This block was removed within 48 hours. So 
I was able to add Comcast subscribers and others whose IP providers use 
the Trend Micro MAPS back to the distribution list. After one headache 
was solved, I noticed that a number of UK subscribers were being 
blocked. My hope is that this blocking is related to the other and will 
not be a problem today. If not, I have to go back into response mode.

Mari above makes suggestions about methods for responding when SHAKSPER 
mailings are blocked. She will be pleased to learn that I follow similar 
procedures to the ones she suggests. However, the task of responding to 
times when the SHAKSPER mailings are block is a time-consuming and 
frustrating process. One of my hopes is that when we migrate the server 
from DSL to fiber optics and get a new static IP address for the server 
that, at least, for a while some of the methods that SPAMMER use that 
result in anti-spamming software companies "blacklisting" SHAKSPER will 
be reduced.

 >Perhaps it is time for several key SHAKSPER people (certainly Hardy
 >and Eric but possibly 1-3 others who serve on one or more of the
 >"editorial" boards noted in Hardy's post) to request some sort of real
 >or virtual meeting w/ the honchos from Trend Micro and the other
 >major perpetrators of the "we won't bother verifying; we'll just block
 >this listserv" attacks. They need to hear directly from you folks about
 >why they're doing something so egregiously wrong. . . .

 >The other thing that might help is if you still have the email addresses
 >that were deleted because of bouncebacks.

I, in fact, asked subscribers who were blocked to contact their ISP and 
let those in charge know that SHAKSPER mailings are legitimate.

Ron Severdia writes,

 >The days of listserv are numbered. The social networks are only one
 >element of many that has already replaced it. The others are discussion
 >groups and forums like Google Groups and Yahoo Groups, which allow for
 >online discussion as well as the same email exchanges listserv provides
 >(not to mention any modern forum software will do the same, allowing
 >users to subscribe to specific topics of interest). Users are demanding
 >more and more that their preferred content be served up when, where, and
 >primarily HOW they want it. They want to customized the frequency and
 >depth of their involvement (usually due to time constraints in this busy
 >world of ours) -- not to mention the ability to apply various "noise
 >filters" to reduce or eliminate "junk." I don't mean that in the sense of
 >spam, but in unwanted content -- increasing the signal to noise ratio, so
 >to speak -- where the users get to set that level/ratio based on their
 >preferences. The inability of listserv to adapt to the way content is 
 >currently ingested and life's inevitable course of change is the key to
 >its demise. The technology is antiquated -- in some parts so much that
 >certain spam-detection algorithms will always assume it's spam unless
 >some very specific manual tweaking is conducted.

 >Those who have their proverbial heads in the sand should consider
 >embracing change as an evolution and progress, rather than an
 >inconvenience. I've made several offers to help this list overcome these
 >challenges and make it competitive with current technologies, but my
 >offers haven't shown any interest. With our site rapidly approaching
 >3,000 registered users from all walks of life -- university professors,
 >high-school students, directors, actors, etc. -- it's an example of how a
 >Shakespeare resource can grow larger than a 20-year old resource in just
 >2 years.

Ron may be correct. However, for 20 years SHAKSPER has been an integral 
part of my life. I acknowledge that SHAKSPER is not for everyone. 
However, it is important to me that I have control over what I post to 
the subscribers and how that content looks. For better or whose, 
SHAKSPER is identified with me. I am not interested in being all things 
to all people; I am not interested in being large just to be large; and 
I am content that those who are interested in the features that Ron has 
to offer will registered at PlayShakespeare.com just as those who are 
interested in discussing the "authorship question" can do so somewhere else.

I will entertain ANY suggestions that Ron would like to make to me about 
ways that SHAKSPER can be improved as I do with everyone. But for good 
or bad, SHAKSPER has become the service that is associated with me and 
that has opened all of the professions doors I have walked through and 
that is responsible for my knowing the wonderful Shakespearean I have 
met and known over the years.

SHAKSPER may be going the way of the dinosaurs. And when that is about 
to happen, I will pass it off to someone else who can mine the petroleum 
products for all they are worth.

For now, I have made my choices about SHAKSPER immediate future and will 
live with those choices, accepting the challenges I have to face as a 
consequence.

Hardy M. Cook
Editor of SHAKSPER

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.