[ilds] What has happened to the ilds list

James Gifford james.d.gifford at gmail.com
Tue Jan 25 18:18:41 PST 2011


Well put, Bruce.  I think there have been ongoing worries about 
"academic" and "lay" topics, and I for one don't think it's a real 
issue.  Academics like to talk about academic issues, lay readers the 
same, and then the vast majority vacillating in between.  The 
Australians, evidently, like to talk about wine...

Regardless of our various and diverse interests, some of us will and 
won't be interested in each others topics, but that's why the list is an 
open forum in which people can dabble as they wish.  The variety of 
interests is a good thing, not a bad, and lurkers are welcome too. 
Folks are free to participate in whatever way suits them best.

 > Nor do I see it as a cheering section for Lawrence
 > Durrell's life and work.

My academic hat tells me to say "cheering" is beside the point, but I 
suspect some would enjoy a cheer now and again (or the opposite), and I 
don't think they should be silenced.  I just won't provide the pom poms.

I might also add, a good deal of answers are sent off-list, which I 
believe has been the case for several recent academic queries.

"Cheers"
James

On 25/01/11 6:04 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote:
> I agree with David Green. If the ILDS List is to survive as an open
> forum it requires both participation and receptivity to all kinds of
> ideas about Lawrence Durrell and his achievement. A couple of months
> ago, Bill Godshalk was exploring Thomas Middleton's /Blacke Booke/ as a
> source for Durrell's own novel of the same name. Some members complained
> privately that such topics were too "academic." If I understand the
> circumstances correctly, those complaints ended further discussion on
> this fascinating subject. So, scholarly matters were not distributed and
> abruptly dropped. This I find both ridiculous and astonishing. In my
> view, nothing about L. Durrell is too academic or too personal for
> discussion. All kinds of trivia or nitpicking should be examined and
> discussed, no matter how technical, for the simple reason that there's
> no telling where they might lead and how important they might become in
> attaining a full understanding of this major author. With respect to
> matters of etiquette, I think it good manners to answer questions
> directly, within reason, of course. We're all equal here. I also think
> that if one doesn't participate then one shouldn't complain. That's the
> responsibility of entering the ring. I don't see the ILDS List as a
> spectator sport. Nor do I see it as a cheering section for Lawrence
> Durrell's life and work.
>
>
> Bruce


More information about the ILDS mailing list