![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 2007: A Question
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@shaksper.net) Date: 02/17/07
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0156 Saturday, 17 February 2007 [1] From: Joseph Egert <quixote46@hotmail.com> Date: Thursday, 15 Feb 2007 23:38:38 +0000 Subj: RE: SHK 18.0151 A Question [2] From: David Lindley <D.Lindley@leeds.ac.uk> Date: Friday, 16 Feb 2007 00:04:25 -0000 Subj: RE: SHK 18.0151 A Question [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph Egert <quixote46@hotmail.com> Date: Thursday, 15 Feb 2007 23:38:38 +0000 Subject: 18.0151 A Question Comment: RE: SHK 18.0151 A Question The eminence vive of Cardiff has struck again, with delicious irony (and a suppressed wish, perhaps): >To meet the point I have arranged, by >magical means, that the following passage will immediately appear in >all past, current and future editions of my Shakespeare in the >Present. But Professor, should we expect less? How does it go: "He who controls the present..." Careful, Professor. In the now-to-come, you may yet rue what you have wrought. How long before your jazz riffs turn to noise, your descants to midnight chimes? Will it be too late then for redemption? Will we still care what we leave behind? Once again, Terry Hawkes, how many fingers? As for John Drakakis, I urge those still interested to review the interchange and discover who has labeled whom "reactionary" (a confusion of identities?), who has refused and still refuses to define said label, who has refused and still refuses to clarify what he means by "Enlightenment" and now "liberal" and "conservative"---yet more floating signifiers. Does Babel approach, or has it already arrived? Regards from the bridge, Joe Egert [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lindley <D.Lindley@leeds.ac.uk> Date: Friday, 16 Feb 2007 00:04:25 -0000 Subject: 18.0151 A Question Comment: RE: SHK 18.0151 A Question Quoting John Drakakis: '"presentism" is a relatively new concept' Well, it's a new name, or label, anyway - how far the concept is actually 'new' is something we might debate in the roundtable discussion. (Which is where I would have thought quite a lot of the comments on this thread might profitably have been sent.) David Lindley [Editor's Note: As David Lindley notes above, many of the comments that have appeared in this thread more properly belong in the Roundtable discussion, a sentiment I expressed as well a few days ago. In fact, I have convinced one poster this week to permit his remarks to be included in the upcoming Roundtable digest. True, Roundtable digests arrive only once per week as opposed to three to fives times per week, but for the time being I urge patience. Should the once per week format not turn out to be appropriate, I will reconsider Roundtable procedures. One of the many reasons for weekly distribution is not to over-burden the Guest Moderator, a volunteer who remains an active scholar-professor. As for me, editing the daily digests has become an inextricable part of my life, granted a very time consuming part of it that has impacted negatively on my own scholarly output but a sacrifice I have been willing to make for a long time now. I have considered on numerous occasions adding another feature to SHAKSPER: a weekly, bi-monthly, or monthly Dump-on-Post-Modernism Session. The idea would be that every Thursday or every other Thursday, for example, I would, after issuing an ongoing invitation to do so, gather all posts that express a distain for any critical or theoretical approach that has been employed since the mid-1960s. Such a feature would provide an outlet for those who are frustrated with the current state of academic discourse to vent. -HMC] _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook, editor@shaksper.net 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.
|
|
|||||