[ilds] A layman's view

Ronald Durbin rjdurbin at gcsolutions.com
Sun Dec 11 22:08:50 PST 2016


Having been a lurker and non-contributor off and on over the years on the
list and a current paying member, I am re-reading Justine for the umptieth
time, and still wondering why.  My two shelves of Durrrell are I n storage
for 2 years, but I will continue to read them when I get them back.  Sorry
to see such discord among Durellians.  Love or hate his writing we dumb
non-academics keep reading and learning from academics.

-----Original Message-----
From: ILDS [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of
ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2016 2:01 PM
To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
Subject: ILDS Digest, Vol 116, Issue 5

Send ILDS mailing list submissions to
	ilds at lists.uvic.ca

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca

You can reach the person managing the list at
	ilds-owner at lists.uvic.ca

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of ILDS digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: The Function of the ILDS Listserv (Anne Zahlan)
   2. Re: The Function of the ILDS Listserv (Bruce Redwine)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 16:23:46 -0500
From: "Anne Zahlan" <zahlan at earthlink.net>
To: <ilds at lists.uvic.ca>
Subject: Re: [ilds] The Function of the ILDS Listserv
Message-ID: <000601d2532b$b16e2310$144a6930$@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Among the many complaints expressed by Mr. Redwine was the following: I
nominated someone for ExCom, but I was never informed of what happened to my
nomination, which, as I eventually learned, went nowhere or possibly into
the trashcan.  

 

I am reliably informed by the chair of the nominations committee that Mr.
Redwine?s nomination, as all others, was acknowledged with thanks. Of
course, the committee appropriately considered all nominations, considered
which candidates had more nominations than others, and discussed experience
and qualifications of all before making a decision.

 

 

From: ILDS [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2016 8:07 PM
To: Sumantra Nag <ilds at lists.uvic.ca>
Cc: Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net>
Subject: [ilds] The Function of the ILDS Listserv

 

Dear Pamela Francis and G. R. Taneja:

 

Thanks for your two responses.

 

First, let?s avoid the red herring about the difficulties of pursuing an
academic career.  Which I do not dispute.  Let?s stick to the topic of what
has become of the ILDS listserv and all its implications.  Perhaps I
idealize, but I see it as a forum for discussing issues related to Lawrence
Durrell in depth.  A place to test ideas and to see what works and what
doesn?t.  That precedent was set back in 2007 (?), during a moderated (and
highly successful) close reading of Justine.  The ILDS moderators were James
Gifford, Charles Sligh, and Bill Godshalk.  They were all excellent, and
they were all academics.  Gifford and Sligh provided detailed commentary.
Godshalk was pithy and humorous.  But they all participated?and that's my
main point.  Do we see such participation today?  No (with one or two
exceptions).  That?s a fact.  Am I advocating a return to the culture of
2007?  No.  My model is Bill Godshalk, who was (now sadly gone) a very busy
and productive scholar of grea!
 t worth.  In his unique style, Bill listened, commented, prodded, and kept
the discussions going.  He was undoubtedly a fine teacher in the Socratic
tradition.  Does such participation involve a lot of extra work?  Although
possibly wrong, I don?t think so, unless one is stimulated to greater
involvement.  I don?t expect the list to ever repeat the success of 2007.
Some crude ?simulacrum,? however, can be attempted.  Last year a reading of
Tunc took place.

 

Two, what?s the situation today?  Above all, praise goes to James Gifford
for his tireless moderation of the list?s remnants.  Now,  James Clawson
mischaracterizes the ILDS listserv as a ?distraction? and an ?echo chamber,?
which I take personally offensive, and he uses the Society?s newsletter to
publish his views.  In doing so, he promulgates official policy.  If
challenging this characterization is an ad hominem attack, then this forum
has indeed ceased to be a place for ?any sort of useful discussion.?  I?ve
always thought of the Academy as a place for open debate.  The fact that
both of you disagree with my challenge, strongly suggests to me that you
believe the general membership of the ILDS should pay their annual dues, sit
quietly, and not complain as policy is determined by a select few.  For
another opinion, I suggest you read Peter Baldwin?s email of 7 December
2016, item no. 3 in particular.  On this point, I completely agree with
Peter.

 

Three, is the ILDS a democracy or an oligarchy?  I think it?s run like the
latter.  But this is a matter of the bylaws.  Perhaps a lawyer can comment.
I realize that institutions like corporations are not democracies (so I was
informed by an SVP when I worked in one).  Does the ILDS fit this pattern?
Is the Executive Committee (ExCom) too satisfied with its plenary powers?
Hence, no need to consult and no need to justify itself?  I nominated
someone for ExCom, but I was never informed of what happened to my
nomination, which, as I eventually learned, went nowhere or possibly into
the trashcan.  I would like to see, in the jargon of the day, more
?transparency.?  For example, are the minutes of ExCom meetings taken?  If
so, why aren?t they circulated via the list and why aren?t comments
solicited?  Generally, I find ExCom unresponsive, as illustrated by two
previously emails by others on this topic, which, so far, have gone
unanswered.  It seems that the only way to get a !
 response is to be blunt, of which I am guilty.

 

Four, for all the reason stated above and previously, I do not agree that
the ILDS listserv is antiquated and useless.  As to the value of Twitter and
Facebook as vehicles for ?discussing? Lawrence Durrell, I?ve already stated
my views in a previous email.  They have not changed.  In brief, I see those
outlets as a diminution of Durrellian studies.  I?ll not participate in
them, and I see no point in pandering to the whims of current social media.
Yes, I?m an old fogey.

 

 

Clarifications

 

 

One, to be clear, I did not make up the story of academics saving their
ideas for articles, which Pamela Francis apparently inflated into an attack
on her profession.  That anecdote originated as an exchange between two
academics, one of whom reported it to me.  I take it as true.  From what I
know of academia and the years spent in it, I think that story patently
true.

 

Two, I do not hold academia in contempt.  That innuendo is another red
herring.  To the contrary, I value the Academy highly.  You, Pamela Francis,
are confusing debate with conflict?which surprises me, given your profession
and what it values, the free exchange of ideas.  You are also indulging in
the kind of mischaracterization previously reserved for the ILDS listserv.
I am not an academic, but I am on Academia.edu <http://Academia.edu> .  I
don?t have a title and institutional identification, as you do, but my CV
and articles can be downloaded at the website.  My recent essay is entitled,
?The Ancient Egyptian Context of The Alexandria Quartet,? Mosaic 49.3
(2016):  71-90.

 

So let the debate continue,

 

Bruce

 

 

 

 

 

On Dec 9, 2016, at 7:43 AM, Pamela Francis <pamelajofrancis at gmail.com
<mailto:pamelajofrancis at gmail.com> > wrote:

 

subject: Bruce Redwine's comments:

>That is, he doesn?t want to engage in any kind of  serious 
>discussion?for whatever reason.  (So the advice of one  academic?time 
>is better spent writing articles for tenure and promotion.)

To Bruce and other members of the listserve:

Mr. Redwine's comment is exactly the kind of statement that indicates that
this listserve has become a forum for personal grievances rather than any
sort of useful discussion. I don't know what you have against people who do
academic work, Bruce, but I refuse to even take part in a forum where the
very nature of my life's work is somehow considered to be so much blather.
No one has ever, to my knowledge (though admittedly, I don't use this forum
for the reason stated) said that you don't have any sort of validity in your
research just because you are not an academic; however, I do not see the
same respect for those of us who do make our living by teaching. You have no
idea what teaching in a university in the US is like now--tenure barely even
exists, and James Clawson and I both teach in institutions where research
and publishing are secondary to the instructional components of our job. It
is hard work, and time-consuming work, and to be accused of some sort of
snobbery tow!
 ards non-academics that I know neither James Clawson nor I nor any of the
other Board members possess is insulting and uncalled-for. 

As for out-dated technology; well, yes, listserves are outdated. I
subscribed to about five of them about ten years ago. As far as I know, this
is the only one that is still extant. If you choose not to use social media,
so be it, but I find our page to be lively and informative, and I have come
to know a great number of people (most, for your information, NOT academics)
from all over the world. We are investigating other forums, but I will say
that the listserve has become little more than a place for you to make
derogatory comments about other Durrellians and this is the main reason that
I, at least, will be more than happy to see this forum go away. 

I promote Durrell scholarship, but I also promote general discussion on both
Durrells, and if you have ever attended an OMG (I think you were in
Victoria?), you would know that a number of our participants are not
affiliated with universities, but are thoughtful admirers of Larry and his
work. Our Society has room for all those who are interested in him, but it
does NOT have room for people who are for some reason dismissive of those
from one or the other "camp." The fact that I have to refer to two "camps"
is a problem, and one that I never dreamed would be an issue in this
Society. 

I realize this is not a well-written reply--I am in the middle of giving a
final, which is some of that work I do to get "promoted," which means that
in another three years, I'll get another $300 a year added to my salary.
Having read some of your missives, I know that you will likely tear apart my
writing. But I have read too many of these mean-spirited posts, and I have
just had enough. This listserve is not in the spirit of genuine dialogue
about a fascinating and complicated writer, and I, for one, do not mourn its
passing. 

Sincerely,

Pamela J. Francis, Vice-President, International Lawrence Durrell Society
and Editor, The Lawrence Durrell Society Herald. 

 

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 2:00 PM, <ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca
<mailto:ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca> > wrote:

Send ILDS mailing list submissions to
        ilds at lists.uvic.ca <mailto:ilds at lists.uvic.ca> 

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca <mailto:ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca> 

You can reach the person managing the list at
        ilds-owner at lists.uvic.ca <mailto:ilds-owner at lists.uvic.ca> 

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of ILDS digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. LISTSERV (William Apt)
   2. ILDS Listserv (Bruce Redwine)
   3. Re: ILDS Listserv (PETER BALDWIN)
   4. Durrell in Hebrew (Rony Alfandary)
   5. Re: Durrell in Hebrew (James Gifford)
   6. Re: Durrell in Hebrew (Rony Alfandary)
   7. Re: Durrell in Hebrew (Kennedy Gammage)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 13:33:43 -0600
From: William Apt <billyapt at gmail.com <mailto:billyapt at gmail.com> >
To: "ilds at lists.uvic.ca <mailto:ilds at lists.uvic.ca> " <ilds at lists.uvic.ca
<mailto:ilds at lists.uvic.ca> >
Subject: [ilds] LISTSERV
Message-ID:
        <CAMN1=f9L-wADZ8c57oKMKQZGFMHh7N6Dh3xMorFU=Jk_JbJjhw at mail.gmail.com
<mailto:Jk_JbJjhw at mail.gmail.com> >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dearest all:

I use neither Facebook nor Twitter. Does that mean that I will not be able
to participate in or keep up with discussions unless I join these outlets?

Billy
--
WILLIAM APT
Attorney at Law
812 San Antonio St, Ste 401
Austin TX 78701
512/708-8300 <tel:512%2F708-8300>
512/708-8011 <tel:512%2F708-8011>  FAX
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20161207/ec743aa2/attachmen
t-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:09:30 -0800
From: Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at gmail.com <mailto:bredwine1968 at gmail.com>
>
To: Sumantra Nag <ILDS at lists.uvic.ca <mailto:ILDS at lists.uvic.ca> >
Cc: Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at gmail.com <mailto:bredwine1968 at gmail.com> >
Subject: [ilds] ILDS Listserv
Message-ID: <3246813F-49D5-4AD2-B80A-8453DFB964AD at gmail.com
<mailto:3246813F-49D5-4AD2-B80A-8453DFB964AD at gmail.com> >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

As a due-paying member of the ILDS, I think we need a clarification on the
function of the ILDS listserv.  Let me quote James Clawson, the incoming
president of the ILDS, as he explains in the current Herald:
In truth, we?ve been outgrowing the technology behind the listserv for a few
years now, and it has with me become a distraction from the work it was
meant to serve. We recommend to users that they move the discussion
elsewhere? for example, to Facebook, where Pamela keeps up the public group,
or to Twitter, where Charles maintains an active presence with @
DurrellSociety. With 130 members in the first of these and 1,600 followers
of the latter, these groups serve far more active participants than the
listserv, and they?re a vibrant means to reach outward beyond the invisible
walls of what could otherwise become an echo chamber.

Now, what is Clawson really saying?  The listserv, to which he almost never
contributed, has become a ?distraction.?  (If I recall correctly, Clawson
made only one brief comment re the idea of Durrell?s latent
?homosexuality.?)   That is, he doesn?t want to engage in any kind of
serious discussion?for whatever reason.  (So the advice of one academic?time
is better spent writing articles for tenure and promotion.)  And what was
the listserv ?meant to serve??  What is it now intended to become?
Presumably a vehicle for a kind of Durrellian agitprop, which can be more
effectively propagated on social networks such as Twitter and Facebook.  And
why did the listserv become an ?echo chamber??  Because, with one notable
exception, academics never contribute to the discussions.  Yes, Clawson's
reasoning is circular.

I don?t use social networks and never will.  These are not forums for
?discussion,? as Clawson claims.  They?re places for dropping one-liners and
postcard impressions.  I?m very suspicious of those who use these outlets.
I think that they pander to the craving for fame and recognition and that
they promote lazy thinking, the kind president-elect Donald Trump indulges
in.

Bruce
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20161207/ea773856/attachmen
t-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 05:47:40 +0000
From: PETER BALDWIN <delospeter at hotmail.com <mailto:delospeter at hotmail.com>
>
To: "ilds at lists.uvic.ca <mailto:ilds at lists.uvic.ca> " <ilds at lists.uvic.ca
<mailto:ilds at lists.uvic.ca> >
Subject: Re: [ilds] ILDS Listserv
Message-ID:
 
<LOXP123MB114356C7FF998D82D6432006C8840 at LOXP123MB1143.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.C
OM
<mailto:LOXP123MB114356C7FF998D82D6432006C8840 at LOXP123MB1143.GBRP123.PROD.OU
TLOOK.COM> >

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

A number of comments :

1. The ILDS needs to keep up with the times and consider how best to use
social media

2. All such media are open to abuse and that, regrettably, has to be
factored into our use of such media

3. If James' comments reflect a change of ILDS policy determined by the ILDS
committee, I would rather it had be sent out first via The Herald for
consultation.

4. Against my better judgement, I subscribe to both Facebook and Twitter.
Contrary to my expectation when I subscribed to Facebook with a view to
keeping in touch with far-fling family, I consider it useless. However, I
have found it invaluable for special interest groups where info and photos
can be shared - both helpful and enjoyable. I am still finding my feet with
Twitter but, again, think it is a good forum for views on shared interest.

5. I personally would keep the list serve since there is no character limit.

Hope these comments help

Peter Baldwin



Sent from my iPhone

On 7 Dec 2016, at 23:43, Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at gmail.com
<mailto:bredwine1968 at gmail.com> <mailto:bredwine1968 at gmail.com
<mailto:bredwine1968 at gmail.com> >> wrote:

As a due-paying member of the ILDS, I think we need a clarification on the
function of the ILDS listserv.  Let me quote James Clawson, the incoming
president of the ILDS, as he explains in the current Herald:

In truth, we've been outgrowing the technology behind the listserv for a few
years now, and it has with me become a distraction from the work it was
meant to serve. We recommend to users that they move the discussion
elsewhere- for example, to Facebook, where Pamela keeps up the public group,
or to Twitter, where Charles maintains an active presence with @
DurrellSociety. With 130 members in the first of these and 1,600 followers
of the latter, these groups serve far more active participants than the
listserv, and they're a vibrant means to reach outward beyond the invisible
walls of what could otherwise become an echo chamber.

Now, what is Clawson really saying?  The listserv, to which he almost never
contributed, has become a "distraction."  (If I recall correctly, Clawson
made only one brief comment re the idea of Durrell's latent
"homosexuality.")   That is, he doesn't want to engage in any kind of
serious discussion-for whatever reason.  (So the advice of one academic-time
is better spent writing articles for tenure and promotion.)  And what was
the listserv "meant to serve?"  What is it now intended to become?
Presumably a vehicle for a kind of Durrellian agitprop, which can be more
effectively propagated on social networks such as Twitter and Facebook.  And
why did the listserv become an "echo chamber?"  Because, with one notable
exception, academics never contribute to the discussions.  Yes, Clawson's
reasoning is circular.

I don't use social networks and never will.  These are not forums for
"discussion," as Clawson claims.  They're places for dropping one-liners and
postcard impressions.  I'm very suspicious of those who use these outlets.
I think that they pander to the craving for fame and recognition and that
they promote lazy thinking, the kind president-elect Donald Trump indulges
in.

Bruce

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20161210/7dc4d492/attachmen
t-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 14:35:12 -0800
From: Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net>
To: Sumantra Nag <ilds at lists.uvic.ca>
Cc: Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [ilds] The Function of the ILDS Listserv
Message-ID: <EF3D4442-467A-42CA-81A7-3799B45046F5 at earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Thanks for the information.  But I expected to be informed of the outcome of
my nomination.  A followed up, as you have just provided, would have been
appreciated.  Similarly, journals normally do this when rejecting MSS.  It?s
a matter of courtesy.

Bruce





> On Dec 10, 2016, at 1:23 PM, Anne Zahlan <zahlan at earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> Among the many complaints expressed by Mr. Redwine was the following: I
nominated someone for ExCom, but I was never informed of what happened to my
nomination, which, as I eventually learned, went nowhere or possibly into
the trashcan.  
>  
> I am reliably informed by the chair of the nominations committee that Mr.
Redwine?s nomination, as all others, was acknowledged with thanks. Of
course, the committee appropriately considered all nominations, considered
which candidates had more nominations than others, and discussed experience
and qualifications of all before making a decision.
>  
>  
> From: ILDS [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce 
> Redwine
> Sent: Friday, December 9, 2016 8:07 PM
> To: Sumantra Nag <ilds at lists.uvic.ca>
> Cc: Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net>
> Subject: [ilds] The Function of the ILDS Listserv
>  
> Dear Pamela Francis and G. R. Taneja:
>  
> Thanks for your two responses.
>  
> First, let?s avoid the red herring about the difficulties of pursuing an
academic career.  Which I do not dispute.  Let?s stick to the topic of what
has become of the ILDS listserv and all its implications.  Perhaps I
idealize, but I see it as a forum for discussing issues related to Lawrence
Durrell in depth.  A place to test ideas and to see what works and what
doesn?t.  That precedent was set back in 2007 (?), during a moderated (and
highly successful) close reading of Justine.  The ILDS moderators were James
Gifford, Charles Sligh, and Bill Godshalk.  They were all excellent, and
they were all academics.  Gifford and Sligh provided detailed commentary.
Godshalk was pithy and humorous.  But they all participated?and that's my
main point.  Do we see such participation today?  No (with one or two
exceptions).  That?s a fact.  Am I advocating a return to the culture of
2007?  No.  My model is Bill Godshalk, who was (now sadly gone) a very busy
and productive scholar of gr!
 eat worth.  In his unique style, Bill listened, commented, prodded, and
kept the discussions going.  He was undoubtedly a fine teacher in the
Socratic tradition.  Does such participation involve a lot of extra work?
Although possibly wrong, I don?t think so, unless one is stimulated to
greater involvement.  I don?t expect the list to ever repeat the success of
2007.  Some crude ?simulacrum,? however, can be attempted.  Last year a
reading of Tunc took place.
>  
> Two, what?s the situation today?  Above all, praise goes to James Gifford
for his tireless moderation of the list?s remnants.  Now,  James Clawson
mischaracterizes the ILDS listserv as a ?distraction? and an ?echo chamber,?
which I take personally offensive, and he uses the Society?s newsletter to
publish his views.  In doing so, he promulgates official policy.  If
challenging this characterization is an ad hominem attack, then this forum
has indeed ceased to be a place for ?any sort of useful discussion.?  I?ve
always thought of the Academy as a place for open debate.  The fact that
both of you disagree with my challenge, strongly suggests to me that you
believe the general membership of the ILDS should pay their annual dues, sit
quietly, and not complain as policy is determined by a select few.  For
another opinion, I suggest you read Peter Baldwin?s email of 7 December
2016, item no. 3 in particular.  On this point, I completely agree with
Peter.
>  
> Three, is the ILDS a democracy or an oligarchy?  I think it?s run like the
latter.  But this is a matter of the bylaws.  Perhaps a lawyer can comment.
I realize that institutions like corporations are not democracies (so I was
informed by an SVP when I worked in one).  Does the ILDS fit this pattern?
Is the Executive Committee (ExCom) too satisfied with its plenary powers?
Hence, no need to consult and no need to justify itself?  I nominated
someone for ExCom, but I was never informed of what happened to my
nomination, which, as I eventually learned, went nowhere or possibly into
the trashcan.  I would like to see, in the jargon of the day, more
?transparency.?  For example, are the minutes of ExCom meetings taken?  If
so, why aren?t they circulated via the list and why aren?t comments
solicited?  Generally, I find ExCom unresponsive, as illustrated by two
previously emails by others on this topic, which, so far, have gone
unanswered.  It seems that the only way to get !
 a response is to be blunt, of which I am guilty.
>  
> Four, for all the reason stated above and previously, I do not agree that
the ILDS listserv is antiquated and useless.  As to the value of Twitter and
Facebook as vehicles for ?discussing? Lawrence Durrell, I?ve already stated
my views in a previous email.  They have not changed.  In brief, I see those
outlets as a diminution of Durrellian studies.  I?ll not participate in
them, and I see no point in pandering to the whims of current social media.
Yes, I?m an old fogey.
>  
>  
> Clarifications
>  
>  
> One, to be clear, I did not make up the story of academics saving their
ideas for articles, which Pamela Francis apparently inflated into an attack
on her profession.  That anecdote originated as an exchange between two
academics, one of whom reported it to me.  I take it as true.  From what I
know of academia and the years spent in it, I think that story patently
true.
>  
> Two, I do not hold academia in contempt.  That innuendo is another red
herring.  To the contrary, I value the Academy highly.  You, Pamela Francis,
are confusing debate with conflict?which surprises me, given your profession
and what it values, the free exchange of ideas.  You are also indulging in
the kind of mischaracterization previously reserved for the ILDS listserv.
I am not an academic, but I am on Academia.edu <http://academia.edu/>.  I
don?t have a title and institutional identification, as you do, but my CV
and articles can be downloaded at the website.  My recent essay is entitled,
?The Ancient Egyptian Context of The Alexandria Quartet,? Mosaic 49.3
(2016):  71-90.
>  
> So let the debate continue,
>  
> Bruce
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>> On Dec 9, 2016, at 7:43 AM, Pamela Francis <pamelajofrancis at gmail.com
<mailto:pamelajofrancis at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>  
>> subject: Bruce Redwine's comments:
>> 
>> >That is, he doesn?t want to engage in any kind of  serious 
>> >discussion?for whatever reason.  (So the advice of one  
>> >academic?time is better spent writing articles for tenure and 
>> >promotion.)
>> 
>> To Bruce and other members of the listserve:
>> 
>> Mr. Redwine's comment is exactly the kind of statement that indicates
that this listserve has become a forum for personal grievances rather than
any sort of useful discussion. I don't know what you have against people who
do academic work, Bruce, but I refuse to even take part in a forum where the
very nature of my life's work is somehow considered to be so much blather.
No one has ever, to my knowledge (though admittedly, I don't use this forum
for the reason stated) said that you don't have any sort of validity in your
research just because you are not an academic; however, I do not see the
same respect for those of us who do make our living by teaching. You have no
idea what teaching in a university in the US is like now--tenure barely even
exists, and James Clawson and I both teach in institutions where research
and publishing are secondary to the instructional components of our job. It
is hard work, and time-consuming work, and to be accused of some sort of
snobbery !
 towards non-academics that I know neither James Clawson nor I nor any of
the other Board members possess is insulting and uncalled-for. 
>> 
>> As for out-dated technology; well, yes, listserves are outdated. I
subscribed to about five of them about ten years ago. As far as I know, this
is the only one that is still extant. If you choose not to use social media,
so be it, but I find our page to be lively and informative, and I have come
to know a great number of people (most, for your information, NOT academics)
from all over the world. We are investigating other forums, but I will say
that the listserve has become little more than a place for you to make
derogatory comments about other Durrellians and this is the main reason that
I, at least, will be more than happy to see this forum go away. 
>> 
>> I promote Durrell scholarship, but I also promote general discussion on
both Durrells, and if you have ever attended an OMG (I think you were in
Victoria?), you would know that a number of our participants are not
affiliated with universities, but are thoughtful admirers of Larry and his
work. Our Society has room for all those who are interested in him, but it
does NOT have room for people who are for some reason dismissive of those
from one or the other "camp." The fact that I have to refer to two "camps"
is a problem, and one that I never dreamed would be an issue in this
Society. 
>> 
>> I realize this is not a well-written reply--I am in the middle of giving
a final, which is some of that work I do to get "promoted," which means that
in another three years, I'll get another $300 a year added to my salary.
Having read some of your missives, I know that you will likely tear apart my
writing. But I have read too many of these mean-spirited posts, and I have
just had enough. This listserve is not in the spirit of genuine dialogue
about a fascinating and complicated writer, and I, for one, do not mourn its
passing. 
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> Pamela J. Francis, Vice-President, International Lawrence Durrell Society
and Editor, The Lawrence Durrell Society Herald. 
>>  
>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 2:00 PM, <ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca
<mailto:ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca>> wrote:
>>> Send ILDS mailing list submissions to
>>>         ilds at lists.uvic.ca <mailto:ilds at lists.uvic.ca>
>>> 
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>>         https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds 
>>> <https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds>
>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>>         ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca 
>>> <mailto:ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca>
>>> 
>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>>         ilds-owner at lists.uvic.ca <mailto:ilds-owner at lists.uvic.ca>
>>> 
>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific 
>>> than "Re: Contents of ILDS digest..."
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Today's Topics:
>>> 
>>>    1. LISTSERV (William Apt)
>>>    2. ILDS Listserv (Bruce Redwine)
>>>    3. Re: ILDS Listserv (PETER BALDWIN)
>>>    4. Durrell in Hebrew (Rony Alfandary)
>>>    5. Re: Durrell in Hebrew (James Gifford)
>>>    6. Re: Durrell in Hebrew (Rony Alfandary)
>>>    7. Re: Durrell in Hebrew (Kennedy Gammage)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> --
>>> 
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 13:33:43 -0600
>>> From: William Apt <billyapt at gmail.com <mailto:billyapt at gmail.com>>
>>> To: "ilds at lists.uvic.ca <mailto:ilds at lists.uvic.ca>" 
>>> <ilds at lists.uvic.ca <mailto:ilds at lists.uvic.ca>>
>>> Subject: [ilds] LISTSERV
>>> Message-ID:
>>>         
>>> <CAMN1=f9L-wADZ8c57oKMKQZGFMHh7N6Dh3xMorFU=Jk_JbJjhw at mail.gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:Jk_JbJjhw at mail.gmail.com>>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>> 
>>> Dearest all:
>>> 
>>> I use neither Facebook nor Twitter. Does that mean that I will not 
>>> be able to participate in or keep up with discussions unless I join 
>>> these outlets?
>>> 
>>> Billy
>>> --
>>> WILLIAM APT
>>> Attorney at Law
>>> 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401
>>> Austin TX 78701
>>> 512/708-8300 <tel:512%2F708-8300>
>>> 512/708-8011 <tel:512%2F708-8011> FAX
>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was 
>>> scrubbed...
>>> URL: 
>>> <http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20161207/ec743aa2/a
>>> ttachment-0001.html 
>>> <http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20161207/ec743aa2/a
>>> ttachment-0001.html>>
>>> 
>>> ------------------------------
>>> 
>>> Message: 2
>>> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:09:30 -0800
>>> From: Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:bredwine1968 at gmail.com>>
>>> To: Sumantra Nag <ILDS at lists.uvic.ca <mailto:ILDS at lists.uvic.ca>>
>>> Cc: Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:bredwine1968 at gmail.com>>
>>> Subject: [ilds] ILDS Listserv
>>> Message-ID: <3246813F-49D5-4AD2-B80A-8453DFB964AD at gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:3246813F-49D5-4AD2-B80A-8453DFB964AD at gmail.com>>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>> 
>>> As a due-paying member of the ILDS, I think we need a clarification on
the function of the ILDS listserv.  Let me quote James Clawson, the incoming
president of the ILDS, as he explains in the current Herald:
>>> In truth, we?ve been outgrowing the technology behind the listserv for a
few years now, and it has with me become a distraction from the work it was
meant to serve. We recommend to users that they move the discussion
elsewhere? for example, to Facebook, where Pamela keeps up the public group,
or to Twitter, where Charles maintains an active presence with @
DurrellSociety. With 130 members in the first of these and 1,600 followers
of the latter, these groups serve far more active participants than the
listserv, and they?re a vibrant means to reach outward beyond the invisible
walls of what could otherwise become an echo chamber.
>>> 
>>> Now, what is Clawson really saying?  The listserv, to which he almost
never contributed, has become a ?distraction.?  (If I recall correctly,
Clawson made only one brief comment re the idea of Durrell?s latent
?homosexuality.?)   That is, he doesn?t want to engage in any kind of
serious discussion?for whatever reason.  (So the advice of one academic?time
is better spent writing articles for tenure and promotion.)  And what was
the listserv ?meant to serve??  What is it now intended to become?
Presumably a vehicle for a kind of Durrellian agitprop, which can be more
effectively propagated on social networks such as Twitter and Facebook.  And
why did the listserv become an ?echo chamber??  Because, with one notable
exception, academics never contribute to the discussions.  Yes, Clawson's
reasoning is circular.
>>> 
>>> I don?t use social networks and never will.  These are not forums for
?discussion,? as Clawson claims.  They?re places for dropping one-liners and
postcard impressions.  I?m very suspicious of those who use these outlets.
I think that they pander to the craving for fame and recognition and that
they promote lazy thinking, the kind president-elect Donald Trump indulges
in.
>>> 
>>> Bruce
>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was 
>>> scrubbed...
>>> URL: 
>>> <http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20161207/ea773856/a
>>> ttachment-0001.html 
>>> <http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20161207/ea773856/a
>>> ttachment-0001.html>>
>>> 
>>> ------------------------------
>>> 
>>> Message: 3
>>> Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 05:47:40 +0000
>>> From: PETER BALDWIN <delospeter at hotmail.com 
>>> <mailto:delospeter at hotmail.com>>
>>> To: "ilds at lists.uvic.ca <mailto:ilds at lists.uvic.ca>" 
>>> <ilds at lists.uvic.ca <mailto:ilds at lists.uvic.ca>>
>>> Subject: Re: [ilds] ILDS Listserv
>>> Message-ID:
>>>         
>>> <LOXP123MB114356C7FF998D82D6432006C8840 at LOXP123MB1143.GBRP123.PROD.O
>>> UTLOOK.COM 
>>> <mailto:LOXP123MB114356C7FF998D82D6432006C8840 at LOXP123MB1143.GBRP123
>>> .PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>>
>>> 
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>> 
>>> A number of comments :
>>> 
>>> 1. The ILDS needs to keep up with the times and consider how best to 
>>> use social media
>>> 
>>> 2. All such media are open to abuse and that, regrettably, has to be 
>>> factored into our use of such media
>>> 
>>> 3. If James' comments reflect a change of ILDS policy determined by the
ILDS committee, I would rather it had be sent out first via The Herald for
consultation.
>>> 
>>> 4. Against my better judgement, I subscribe to both Facebook and
Twitter. Contrary to my expectation when I subscribed to Facebook with a
view to keeping in touch with far-fling family, I consider it useless.
However, I have found it invaluable for special interest groups where info
and photos can be shared - both helpful and enjoyable. I am still finding my
feet with Twitter but, again, think it is a good forum for views on shared
interest.
>>> 
>>> 5. I personally would keep the list serve since there is no character
limit.
>>> 
>>> Hope these comments help
>>> 
>>> Peter Baldwin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On 7 Dec 2016, at 23:43, Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at gmail.com
<mailto:bredwine1968 at gmail.com><mailto:bredwine1968 at gmail.com
<mailto:bredwine1968 at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> As a due-paying member of the ILDS, I think we need a clarification on
the function of the ILDS listserv.  Let me quote James Clawson, the incoming
president of the ILDS, as he explains in the current Herald:
>>> 
>>> In truth, we've been outgrowing the technology behind the listserv for a
few years now, and it has with me become a distraction from the work it was
meant to serve. We recommend to users that they move the discussion
elsewhere- for example, to Facebook, where Pamela keeps up the public group,
or to Twitter, where Charles maintains an active presence with @
DurrellSociety. With 130 members in the first of these and 1,600 followers
of the latter, these groups serve far more active participants than the
listserv, and they're a vibrant means to reach outward beyond the invisible
walls of what could otherwise become an echo chamber.
>>> 
>>> Now, what is Clawson really saying?  The listserv, to which he almost
never contributed, has become a "distraction."  (If I recall correctly,
Clawson made only one brief comment re the idea of Durrell's latent
"homosexuality.")   That is, he doesn't want to engage in any kind of
serious discussion-for whatever reason.  (So the advice of one academic-time
is better spent writing articles for tenure and promotion.)  And what was
the listserv "meant to serve?"  What is it now intended to become?
Presumably a vehicle for a kind of Durrellian agitprop, which can be more
effectively propagated on social networks such as Twitter and Facebook.  And
why did the listserv become an "echo chamber?"  Because, with one notable
exception, academics never contribute to the discussions.  Yes, Clawson's
reasoning is circular.
>>> 
>>> I don't use social networks and never will.  These are not forums for
"discussion," as Clawson claims.  They're places for dropping one-liners and
postcard impressions.  I'm very suspicious of those who use these outlets.
I think that they pander to the craving for fame and recognition and that
they promote lazy thinking, the kind president-elect Donald Trump indulges
in.
>>> 
>>> Bruce
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> ILDS mailing list
> 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/20161210/6d80e3f6/attachmen
t-0001.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

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


------------------------------

End of ILDS Digest, Vol 116, Issue 5
************************************



More information about the ILDS mailing list