[ilds] Mention of the Alexandria Quartet in an Interesting and Controversial New Book

Sumantra Nag sumantranag at gmail.com
Mon Jun 2 22:06:20 PDT 2014


"I don't understand how the listserv works either, but I have seen my own posts when I reply to an existing thread and it gets posted.

 

When I DON"T see my post, it's when I try to start a new thread, but no one replies.

 

I hope that helps. I have been seeing your name a lot since the listserv 'woke up' about a week ago - you are a visible and valued member of the group.

 

Cheers - Ken"

 

James, here is a post which might reveal that there is a problem. As I understand it, the ILDS sends every  individual 's post - once it is cleared - to a common page seen by everyone, including the sender. That does not seem to be happening now. I have no way of knowing that the moderator has cleared my post and put it up for all to see on ILDS. That also stops my post from being part of a visible thread. 

 

I can see my own sent mail on gmail, but not as a post which has been released by the moderator to a common ILDS page for all. That was what earlier happened. I don't know what has changed. Ken seems to have faced that problem - a post without a response is not put up on an ILDS page which the sender can see.

 

Regards

 

Sumantra

 

-----Original Message-----
From: James Gifford [mailto:james.d.gifford at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 2:08 AM
To: Sumantra Nag; ilds at lists.uvic.ca
Subject: Re: [ilds] Mention of the Alexandria Quartet in an Interesting and Controversial New Book

 

Hello Sumantra,

 

I'm in the midst of travels, but I suggest you check how you're using your email program -- I don't control how you set up gmail...  If you can't see the messages you send, it doesn't have anything to do with the listserv.  It's how you've set up gmail on your tablet.

 

Perhaps write to me off list to see if I can help you.

 

Cheers,

James

 

On 2014-06-02, 10:28 AM, Sumantra Nag wrote:

> How does one get access to a full discussion thread if a post is not 

> visible to the sender? There is no answer to this question.

> 

> Sumantra Nag

> ---------------------

> 

> Sent from my Samsung Tablet

> On 1 Jun 2014 05:11, "James Gifford" <james.d.gifford at gmail.com 

> < <mailto:james.d.gifford at gmail.com> mailto:james.d.gifford at gmail.com>> wrote:

>  >

>  > Hello all

>  >

>  >

>  > On 2014-05-31, 3:36 PM, William Apt wrote:

>  >>

>  >> I don't recall there being a great number of homosexuals in LD's  

> >> inner circle. In fact most were quite straight and anything but asexual.

>  >

>  >

>  > Rather than his personal network, what about his characters?  The 

> percentage jumps...  He was close with George Barker, Elizabeth Smart, 

> and a number of other non-writers of the 30s and 40s who had bisexual lives.

>  >

>  >

>  >> Contrast this with the highly closeted Jack Kerouac, almost all of 

> whose  >> inner circle were gay, despite his life long cultivation of 

> a solid  >> heterosexual public image.

>  >

>  >

>  > But was Kerouac a repressed homosexual?  I'm suspicious of elements 

> of the notion itself.  He seemed to be sexual, period, and not 

> strictly limited.  Then again, I'm not a Kerouac scholar and may be 

> quite wrong on this -- Kerouac was certainly in an "out" milieu.

>  >

>  >

>  >> Finally, LD got involved with some beautiful, sexy women, and had 

> as  >> friends others. If he was gay, he certainly had a great 

> heterosexual  >> picker!

>  >

>  >

>  > I don't want to sound glib, but many gay men were married, even to 

> very attractive women.  It's too easy to speculate.

>  >

>  > Bruce adds

>  >

>  >

>  >> the big objection is what literary critics are fond of making —  

> >> namely, don't confuse the author with his or her writings!  There's  

> >> some validity to this, but I don't always buy the objection and  >> 

> attribute it to the prejudices of New Criticism, whose ideas still  >> 

> linger and influence.

>  >

>  >

>  > The racial issues with the New Critics, who wanted to set aside 

> social context, is certainly open to critique.  But I also don't think 

> we can conflate the text and the author.

>  >

>  > I would, however, very much in this vein point to the importance of 

> sexuality for content in Durrell's books as well as their formal 

> traits and textuality.

>  >

>  > And now to run!

>  >

>  > Best,

>  > James

>  >

>  > _______________________________________________

>  > ILDS mailing list

>  >  <mailto:ILDS at lists.uvic.ca> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca < <mailto:ILDS at lists.uvic.ca> mailto:ILDS at lists.uvic.ca>  > 

>  <https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds

> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20140603/68c6bbc8/attachment.html>


More information about the ILDS mailing list