Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Current Postings ::
Pale Fire

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0043  Monday, 4 February 2013

 

[1] From:        Arthur Lindley < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         February 1, 2013 3:55:41 PM EST

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Pale Fire 

 

[2] From:        Julia Griffin < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         February 1, 2013 4:05:15 PM EST

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Pale Fire 

 

[3] From:        John Drakakis < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         February 2, 2013 1:59:45 PM EST

     Subject:     RE: SHAKSPER: Pale Fire 

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Arthur Lindley < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         February 1, 2013 3:55:41 PM EST

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Pale Fire

 

I second Harry Berger, especially if it spares us any more of Charles’s self-serving accounts of his struggles against ‘the barbarians’.

 

Arthur

 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Julia Griffin < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         February 1, 2013 4:05:15 PM EST

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Pale Fire

 

Though usually I greatly admire Gabriel Egan’s reasoning, and I also second Harry Berger’s recent appeal to put this Pale Fire out, I can’t help asking about Egan’s comment: 

 

>Weinstein defends his ignorance of expressive nuances—for 

>example, that ‘sybaritic’ connotes specifically effeminizing 

>self-indulgence—by citing free online dictionaries that share 

>his imprecision.

 

The OED defines “sybaritic” thus:

 

2. Characterized by or devoted to excessive luxury; effeminately luxurious.

 

(Definition 1. is strictly geographical.)  

 

Well, it’s true that I am able to use the OED online and for free; but still.  How exactly does Gabriel Egan define the word?

 

Julia Griffin

 

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        John Drakakis < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         February 2, 2013 1:59:45 PM EST

Subject:     RE: SHAKSPER: Pale Fire

 

>It would be nice if we could move on past the Weinstein issue. 

>The comments are getting nitty and not really worth anyone’s 

>attention.

 

Hear, Hear!

 

John Drakakis

 
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.