[ilds] What has happened to the ilds list

Denise Tart & David Green dtart at bigpond.net.au
Tue Jan 25 18:43:49 PST 2011


 The
Australians, evidently, like to talk about wine...

Australians? - I think I am the only one and yes I enjoy drinking wine as, 
it would appear, do other Durrellians, but your comment above suggests that 
is all we (I) post about. This is a tad dismissive as I have contributed on 
a broader range of topics and at, I would think, a deeper level than this, 
or has Australia's reputation as a nation of boozers provided a convenient 
stereotype? (laughs because doesn't care - having a glass right now in fact. 
it is Australia day after all)

To Ken Gammage - as to the artillery cranking into position - charge them 
with the bayonet!

David Mineral Water

--------------------------------------------------
From: "James Gifford" <james.d.gifford at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 1:18 PM
To: <ilds at lists.uvic.ca>
Subject: Re: [ilds] What has happened to the ilds list

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> ILDS mailing list
> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds 



More information about the ILDS mailing list