SHAKSPER 2000: This Round of Flaming

From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu)
Date: 12/13/00 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2323  Wednesday, 12 December 2000

From:           Hardy M. Cook <editor@bowiestate.edu>
Date:           Wednesday, December 13, 2000
Subject:        This Round of Flaming

Not being very much in a holiday spirit, I am calling an end to ad
hominem attacks or self-defenses to such attacks for the time being. For
those interested in blood sport below are the last public words in the
on-going mêlées.

Hardy
************************************************************************

[1]     From:   Mike Jensen <mjensen@mayfieldpub.com
        Date:   Tuesday, 12 Dec 2000 10:34:01 -0800
        Subj:   SHK 11.2308 Re: John Lennon

[2]     From:   Robert Peters <RobertPeters@t-online.de>
        Date:   Tuesday, 12 Dec 2000 23:17:14 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.2308 Re: John Lennon

[3]     From:   Simon Malloch <sjvenn@tartarus.uwa.edu.au
        Date:   Wednesday, 13 Dec 2000 10:34:04 +0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.2308 Re: John Lennon

[4]     From:   Florence Amit <efamit@zahav.net.il
        Date:   Wednesday, 13 Dec 2000 03:23:31 -0800
        Subj:   My Protest

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <mjensen@mayfieldpub.com
Date:           Tuesday, 12 Dec 2000 10:34:01 -0800
Subject: Re: John Lennon
Comment:        SHK 11.2308 Re: John Lennon

The flaming continues.  T. Hawkes, holding to a years long grudge,
quoted something I wrote that I have since recanted.  I responded by
declaring the recantation publicly, and expressed (somewhat
condescendingly) my dismay that Hawkes was still doing the very thing
that provoked my original comment.  Something named Paul S. Rhodes
responded with

 Mr. Jensen, Terence Hawkes is a good post-modernist, and as a good
 post-modernist,  he is skeptical of all magisteria--even yours

First Mr. Rhodes, this isn't your fight.  Second, your comment misses
the point since I have changed my mind.  Try again, and tell somebody
who cares.

Mike Jensen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robert Peters <RobertPeters@t-online.de>
Date:           Tuesday, 12 Dec 2000 23:17:14 +0100
Subject: 11.2308 Re: John Lennon
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.2308 Re: John Lennon

Lennon, Lennon, Lennon. "Imagine" is a fine but very naive song, "Woman
is the Nigger of the World" is intellectual bankruptcy. Now, what
Shakespeare role should Lennon play? My choice: Tybalt. I never liked
Lennon and always found him mean and not very friendly. I think this
role would bring out the worst in him. Imagine...

Have a Schubert kind of day,
Robert Peters
robertpeters@t-online.de

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Simon Malloch <sjvenn@tartarus.uwa.edu.au
Date:           Wednesday, 13 Dec 2000 10:34:04 +0800
Subject: 11.2308 Re: John Lennon
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.2308 Re: John Lennon

Paul S. Rhodes wrote:

Mr. Jensen, Terence Hawkes is a good post-modernist, and as a good
post-modernist,  he is skeptical of all magisteria--even yours, Mr.
Jensen.

But he might,  Mr Rhodes,  even be sceptical of you calling him 'good'.
It smells too much of Old Thought.

Simon Malloch.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Florence Amit <efamit@zahav.net.il
Date:           Wednesday, 13 Dec 2000 03:23:31 -0800
Subject:        My Protest

Dear Prof. Cook,

I had not thought to respond anymore to postings, just as I wrote you,
even when I have been quite stimulated by this or that item. But M.
Jensen, thinking that he had found a consensus regarding my lack of
popularity, could not forego bullying me after having failed with Sam
Small and Terence Hawkes. I do not know if he has assessed correctly,
but the point is that he has not got the point at all, about bullying.

He wants to attack my position regarding Hebrew. Just in case no one
else remembers, I feel obliged to point out to you that I have several
times given illustrations of Shakespeare's Hebrew. In 1997 when before I
was a member, with your kind assistance I wrote a list-serve essay
about  Shakespeare's Hebrew with many examples. When I returned to the
forum I attempted to write a most consequential essay.  Half you
received. But the second half required Hebrew characters. But you said
that you had no facilities for Hebrew. So I did not send it. After that
I  rather lost confidence for making fresh attempts. Never the less I
did send the forum a "Homage to Schoenfeld", with a long excerpt from
Schoenfeld's findings. He did pioneer work in Shakespeare's Hebrew
regarding the MOV. From time to time I have sent the forum names that
can be read as Hebrew. What distinguishes them is their remarkable
aptness, for defining a character, Surely that must carry some weight.
When Hero can be "He ruah" - she is spirit or "He rah" she is bad, I
think that it is intentional, especially in consideration that such an
example is one of many.

I have written this, Prof. Cook to keep the record straight about the
subject of Jensen's attack. You may post any of it or not at all
according to your discretion.

My period of sadness has passed and I am able to take hard words better
than a few weeks ago. But no one should accept, as Sam Small says, a
kind of "censorship" just because one's contribution is not according to
the anticipated.

Although I feel very respectful of you and of most forum members, this
letter is not an excuse for further participation. It is strictly for
self-defense.  I do not think that Jensen will desist if he thinks that
he has one little opening.

 Sincerely yours,
 Florence Amit


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