SHAKSPER 2001: Regarding Editor's Decision

From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu)
Date: 09/22/01 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2194  Saturday, 22 September 2001

[1]     From:   Simon Morris <simonm@iptech.demon.co.uk>
        Date:   Monday, 17 Sep 2001 16:58:31 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2193 Regarding Editor's Decision

[2]     From:   Don Bloom <dbloo@asms.net>
        Date:   Monday, 17 Sep 2001 15:51:52 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2193 Regarding Editor's Decision

[3]     From:   Stevie Gamble <stevie.gamble@btinternet.com>
        Date:   Monday, 17 Sep 2001 23:34:33 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2193 Regarding Editor's Decision

[4]     From:   John Velz <jvelz@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu>
        Date:   Monday, 17 Sep 2001 17:40:36 -0500
        Subj:   Regarding Editor's Decision

[5]     From:   Sam Small <samsmall@globalnet.co.uk>
        Date:   Tuesday, 18 Sep 2001 20:17:15 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2193 Regarding Editor's Decision


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Simon Morris <simonm@iptech.demon.co.uk>
Date:           Monday, 17 Sep 2001 16:58:31 +0100
Subject: 12.2193 Regarding Editor's Decision
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2193 Regarding Editor's Decision

Paul Swanson wrote:

> I wanted to respond to the decision that Dr. Cook made regarding the
> events of September 11.
[snip]
> I again want to emphasize that I am not in any way criticizing Dr. Cook
> or any editorial policy of this academic listserv. What I am pointing
> out is that these policies, when looked at as a whole, perhaps represent
> academic and societal attitudes towards what is appropriate to discuss
> and what is not, and to me, this is fascinating.

Or perhaps it represents the rather less fascinating idea that a
listserver called SHAKSPER should restrict itself to matters related to
Shakespeare and his works?

I don't think there is any shortage of fora in which the events of
September 11th can be freely and fully discussed.

I want to emphasize that I am not in any way critizing Paul Swanson, but
what I find fascinating is why he finds his thesis more plausible than
the explanation provided by these two points, if these two points did in
fact occur to him.

Simon Morris

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Don Bloom <dbloo@asms.net>
Date:           Monday, 17 Sep 2001 15:51:52 -0500
Subject: 12.2193 Regarding Editor's Decision
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2193 Regarding Editor's Decision

Poisonally, I have no problem with Hardy's policies in regard to taboo
subjects. He senses that certain topics will simply lead to the
destruction of the list as something intellectually stimulating,
illuminating, and (let's face it) fun. Unlike general society you don't
have to worry about the thugs wrecking everything here, but the bozos
and the crazies can, so Hardy quite generously takes the role of
gatekeeper to keep them in check.

As there is nothing compulsory about membership and participation in the
list, one is perfectly free to enjoy it under its benevolent ruler, or
quit, or set up a competitor.

I think, if you did, you would find very quickly that you either jumped
in quickly to do what Hardy does or you ended up with junk.

Cheers (along with three cheers for our long-suffering editor),
don

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stevie Gamble <stevie.gamble@btinternet.com>
Date:           Monday, 17 Sep 2001 23:34:33 +0100
Subject: 12.2193 Regarding Editor's Decision
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2193 Regarding Editor's Decision

Paul Swanson wrote:

> Perhaps what these editorial decisions manifest is an assumptions that
> as academics and thinkers, we are more comfortable with (or maybe the
> better phrase is "less threatened by") discussions about personal
> morality than we are societal or governmental or military morality. What
> are we to make of this?

Actually, what makes me uncomfortable about this post is the total
absence of any evidence adduced to support these contentions. I don't
find that threatening, but it is tedious.

Stevie Gamble

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Velz <jvelz@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu>
Date:           Monday, 17 Sep 2001 17:40:36 -0500
Subject:        Regarding Editor's Decision

Dear All,

There are personal reasons for the decision that Hardy made.  It is
enormously painful for those close to the disaster.  We must respect his
decision and respect his personal reasons, his private pain.

Though Paul Swanson's posting brings Titus in, and perceptively so, it
can be argued that SHAKSPER is not the venue for our own ethical and
political insights about the events of last week.  Write a letter if you
must and mail it to a newspaper.  But let's get back to Shakespeare.  In
that way we may be defying the terrorists.

Yours for freedom of speech within limits,
John

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sam Small <samsmall@globalnet.co.uk>
Date:           Tuesday, 18 Sep 2001 20:17:15 +0100
Subject: 12.2193 Regarding Editor's Decision
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2193 Regarding Editor's Decision

What exactly is a pacifist - and does it have any relevance to
Shakespeare's writing?

SAM SMALL
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, editor@ws.bowiestate.edu
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

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.


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