SHAKSPER 2000: Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS

From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu)
Date: 12/07/00 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2253  Thursday, 7 December 2000

[1]     From:   Mike Jensen <MJENSEN@mayfieldpub.com>
        Date:   Tuesday, 05 Dec 2000 08:31:23 -0800
        Subj:   SHK 11.2244 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS

[2]     From:   Sean Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
        Date:   Tuesday, 05 Dec 2000 09:04:11 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.2244 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS

[3]     From:   Robin Hamilton <robin.hamilton2@btinternet.com>
        Date:   Tuesday, 5 Dec 2000 17:12:03 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.2244 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS

[4]     From:   Mari Bonomi <mbonomi@snet.net>
        Date:   Tuesday, 5 Dec 2000 15:26:52 -0500
        Subj:   List civility (Was: Re: SHK 11.2244 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS)


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <MJENSEN@mayfieldpub.com>
Date:           Tuesday, 05 Dec 2000 08:31:23 -0800
Subject: Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS
Comment:        SHK 11.2244 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS

I resent these statements about me.

> Since being a grateful member of this list I have never personally
> rebuked a single soul.  I now feel moved to do so and would do it
> off-list but for one important reason.  "I hope that those who see this
> matter as I do will refuse to play with him any more.  He doesn't play
> nice," says my assailant.  I consider this an attempt at list censorship

As Mr. Small knows full well, I offered him an olive branch.  I wrote
him off list after my post encouraging him to elevate the level of
discourse, not to shut up.  My message can correctly be construed as
suggesting self-control, but not censorship.  I don't know what to call
the above statement other than a lie.  The gloves are off Mr. Small.

A couple of people who wrote me off list described you as a bully.
Trying to bully me on-list will not work.

Mike Jensen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
Date:           Tuesday, 05 Dec 2000 09:04:11 -0800
Subject: 11.2244 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.2244 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS

Sam Small writes:

> I do not believe in absolute truth as Mickey Jensen seems to believe.
> Perceptions change with life, loves and outrageous fortune.

One would think that someone so relativist would restrain himself from
the sort of flaming that has been posted on this list under his name.

I would just like to add that 'expressing strong opinions' is not always
an effort to promote dialogue:  it might just as easily be an effort to
bully others into conformity.  In this case, the so-called fascism is
all with the speaker and not with the defenders of public fora.

Cheers,
Seán.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <robin.hamilton2@btinternet.com>
Date:           Tuesday, 5 Dec 2000 17:12:03 -0000
Subject: 11.2244 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.2244 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS

Sam Small writes:

> He [Mike a.k.a. "Mickey"" Jensen] accuses me of putting
> forward challenging notions that illicit robust response.

Is this a concealed reference to Hamlet's purported feelings towards his
mother?

Farbeitfromme to elicit a response, stubborn or other, cliched or not,
from Mr. Small.  Come back Ms. Malaprop, all is forgiven.

Robin Hamilton

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mari Bonomi <mbonomi@snet.net>
Date:           Tuesday, 5 Dec 2000 15:26:52 -0500
Subject: (Was: Re: SHK 11.2244 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS)
Comment:        List civility (Was: Re: SHK 11.2244 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS)

Re: Mike Jenson's post and S. Small's response

While I found Mike Jensen's use of the word "contempt" to have been
excessive (and so admonished him offlist), I did not find the rest of
what he said out of line; in fact, he expressed much of my own
occasional dismay at the very sorts of expression that S. Small indulges
in his attack on Mike.

Mike did not urge censorship in any way or form.  What he suggested..
and I am violating his suggestion because the tone and content of S.
Small's assault was so offensive... was that those of us who find rigid
narrowmindedness and obdurate insistence on one's own views as being the
only Received and therefore Righteous views to be positions that are
absurd, offensive, ludicrous, or otherwise degrading to the discourse of
this list should refrain from responding to the posts containing such
positions.

Mike certainly does not advocate stifling healthy debate.  He and I have
disagreed here on the list and in offlist exchanges.  The difference
that I perceive between healthy debate and the sort of postings to which
Mike (and others of us, candidly) object is that the former leads to new
understandings and broadened as well as deepened thought processes.  The
latter, practiced by a few posters, is designed to intimidate, to
belittle, to dismiss out of hand in the most demeaning fashion any idea
not aligned with the narrow views of the poster.

Mike gets righteous himself, I know... and perhaps his tone might have
been somewhat different. But his content was right on the mark about the
destructive effect of some kinds of posts.  And the distortions which
S.  Small makes of Mike's post are an example of the very thing against
which he rails.

I'd recommend revisiting what Mike posted in light of S. Small's
response thereto... and then revisiting Mike's and S. Small's posts on,
say, 5 different topics over the past 2-3 months.

Then, draw your own conclusions.  I did.

Mari Bonomi

PS I suspect I would loathe Taymor's TITUS.


about SHAKSPER | current postings | submitted papers | browse SHAKSPER | search SHAKSPER
  
Copyright © 2002, Hardy M. Cook, design by Eric Luhrs. All rights reserved.