Subject
Re: Shakspere a playwright? (fwd)
From
Date
Body
*My response is below Gene's message which gave me an option of posting
and which should be posted since it goes to the heart of what the list
and the duties of the moderator should be. GD**
From: gragb@showme.missouri.edu
This is the second time, Galya, that you threaten to censor a dispute when
it drags too long, in your view, or veers too far away from the mainstream.
I think this should not be done. Censorship can be an excellent means to
block, or at least weed out, bumbling indecency (like the "bared butts" of
that hot-charged fellow) but not necessarily stifle a discussion when it
becomes hard. Managing the list, to my mind, should not mean "editing" or
even "moderating" it. Why on earth? It's not that this list is crammed
tight with voices, and is running short of space only of patience and
tolerance, it seems.
In fact, this dispute (Shakespeare's riddle) has a lot to do with
the previous good one on Shade and Kinbote: forgery, authorship, masked
faces, putative European royalty and American intelligentsia, fathers and
sons, etc. "Shade's Bodkin" may be an emblematic tool for making a spare
key to PF's riddle (the "technique": "the voicing of the consonants".) All
of which is as idle and casual as the genre of this ephemeral enterprise is
meant to be (I thought).
Why put a terminus ad que to any topic? Where is the harm in
letting it flow freely, as long as it has fuel and as long as it's decent
(not obscene, if it needs limning).
This is not a journal, with limited space and a certain editorial
view, is it now?
If you choose to post it, you may, of course, but do not feel
obliged to do so.
Best regards,
Gennady Barabtarlo
______________________________________________
No, I don't believe it's a case of censorship. I got several complaints
about the issues being discussed having little to do with Nabokov and
fears that we will now debate Shakespeare's authorship instead -- which I
share. I didn't say I will not post anything on Shakespeare -- I just said
I will not post anything on Shakespeare which has no relevance whatsoever
for Nabokov. Don has done it on occasion as well -- I think that's what
moderators are for. It has nothing to do with mainstream or no mainstream.
I can argue ad nauseam with Peter Kartsev as to whether Babel has talent,
Roman Jakobson is worthy of respect, or whether women writers have any
less reasons to be preoccupied with issues of interest to women than men
writers do when it pertains to issues of interest to men -- but why should
that be done on Nabokv-L? If I am itching to continue this line of
debate, wouldn't it be better for all involved if I did it privately? GD
and which should be posted since it goes to the heart of what the list
and the duties of the moderator should be. GD**
From: gragb@showme.missouri.edu
This is the second time, Galya, that you threaten to censor a dispute when
it drags too long, in your view, or veers too far away from the mainstream.
I think this should not be done. Censorship can be an excellent means to
block, or at least weed out, bumbling indecency (like the "bared butts" of
that hot-charged fellow) but not necessarily stifle a discussion when it
becomes hard. Managing the list, to my mind, should not mean "editing" or
even "moderating" it. Why on earth? It's not that this list is crammed
tight with voices, and is running short of space only of patience and
tolerance, it seems.
In fact, this dispute (Shakespeare's riddle) has a lot to do with
the previous good one on Shade and Kinbote: forgery, authorship, masked
faces, putative European royalty and American intelligentsia, fathers and
sons, etc. "Shade's Bodkin" may be an emblematic tool for making a spare
key to PF's riddle (the "technique": "the voicing of the consonants".) All
of which is as idle and casual as the genre of this ephemeral enterprise is
meant to be (I thought).
Why put a terminus ad que to any topic? Where is the harm in
letting it flow freely, as long as it has fuel and as long as it's decent
(not obscene, if it needs limning).
This is not a journal, with limited space and a certain editorial
view, is it now?
If you choose to post it, you may, of course, but do not feel
obliged to do so.
Best regards,
Gennady Barabtarlo
______________________________________________
No, I don't believe it's a case of censorship. I got several complaints
about the issues being discussed having little to do with Nabokov and
fears that we will now debate Shakespeare's authorship instead -- which I
share. I didn't say I will not post anything on Shakespeare -- I just said
I will not post anything on Shakespeare which has no relevance whatsoever
for Nabokov. Don has done it on occasion as well -- I think that's what
moderators are for. It has nothing to do with mainstream or no mainstream.
I can argue ad nauseam with Peter Kartsev as to whether Babel has talent,
Roman Jakobson is worthy of respect, or whether women writers have any
less reasons to be preoccupied with issues of interest to women than men
writers do when it pertains to issues of interest to men -- but why should
that be done on Nabokv-L? If I am itching to continue this line of
debate, wouldn't it be better for all involved if I did it privately? GD