From pamelajofrancis at gmail.com Mon Dec 12 08:41:56 2016 From: pamelajofrancis at gmail.com (Pamela Francis) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 10:41:56 -0600 Subject: [ilds] ILDS Digest, Vol 116, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Subject: The Function of the Listserve We may both be guilty, Bruce, of reading implications into statements where there are none; I hope that is the truth, and if so, then we all may reach some sort of understanding concerning the existence and purpose of the ILDS listserve. I will admit that when I read your comments about James Clawson, I certainly believed you were implying that James Clawson and others, by association, are somehow profiting from Durrell studies, but then your later letter states that you have determined that academics don?t participate in online discussions b/c they are saving their ideas for themselves. While relieved that you weren?t singling out one member of the Society, I find your attitude towards this to be not only false (from one conversation you?ve decided all who make their living teaching must somehow be hoarding all their ideas?) but also demeaning. There are many reasons that some of us do not utilize this forum (though I think time is the most significant of all. I, for one, have given several hours to this singular discussion); still, I feel it necessary to respond to some of your comments, Bruce. I do not doubt your genuine dedication to this forum, but I do find some of the assertions made about it and its relationship to both the motives of the Executive Board and some of the members of that board offensive and demanding of response. If Clawson?s use of the phrase ?echo chamber? was unfortunate, I will say that it appears there is at least some common sense by participants that the listserve has lacked luster of late. I believe that you, Bruce, felt that implied that somehow you or a few others were being shut down or shut out from participation in the Society. I certainly found your comments offensive, but I was out of line to say that I would be happy to see it go, implying that the listserve would be terminated. Let me clarify: it WILL be terminated at some point, but in order to move to another platform. I know several here have registered satisfaction with the platform; however, I also know there are other platforms out there that can streamline the discussion experience. I think the moderator would welcome suggestions for other platforms that may make conversations more accessible, searchable, and navigable. As to the decided lull in discussion here, I believe an amount of soul-searching is required to figure out how to jumpstart these discussions. Bill Godshalk was certainly a force of nature, and I envy those of you who participated in that conversation. But we, as a community, need to come to some consensus as to what the function of this board should be. Contrary to limiting the free exchange of ideas, some parameters can make this venue more inclusive and productive. Please note that here I am speaking only for myself as an erstwhile participant, and NOT as a member of the board. One aspect that will have to be addressed is a perceived or real academic/anti-academic rift. Or is that only a symptom of something else? I will note that as a possible contributor, I have felt shut out of this discussion board since very early on. I once tried to enter a conversation and spoke of postcolonial theory and its possibilities, and was shut down immediately with the comment that all theory was useless b/c it imposed readings on texts rather than allowing the text to speak. The criticism may be valid or not, but you can understand my dismay, as well as my unwillingness to contribute anything other than the occasional news item. I perhaps read an implication into your statement concerning James Clawson?s column that was not there, but even if you did not imply that academic research and publishing was ?so much blather,? my own experience on this board has certainly led me to believe in an anti-academic tone in much of the discussion. That, in my world view, is upsetting, but not as much as a tendency towards personal attacks. That is what I found offensive about Bruce?s comments, and what I know to have transpired in some previous posts. Let me remind you of your own words, here, Bruce: You certainly have a right to dislike Facebook and Twitter, Bruce. But instead of just saying that you won?t be using it, you have indulged in a put-down of an entire group of people, including myself and a number of other Society members, accusing us of having a ?craving for fame and recognition? and promoting lazy thinking. I have always believed that critical thinking and discussion can be civil, but in just one post, you have indulged in personally criticizing the Society?s President, as well as a vast number of Society members. The tone of this forum is often offensive, and I believe that you?and any others who attack the persons they disagree with, rather than the critical point--are in part responsible for that. This tone has been the biggest concern to me, and is one reason I would like a major reset of this forum, with clear parameters of what should be discussed, as well as some sort of guidelines as to what are or are not valid points of discussion. As an ExCom, as you call it, I have expressed this opinion to the Board (but I do not act unilaterally, of course), but my experience here is related as a view from a possible, but hesitant contributor. Again, this is not meant to stem the flow of conversation, but to instead, allow it to become a more inclusive venue. As for the ILDS Board, and here I will speak as the Society?s Vice-President, Anne Zahlan has addressed your concern about your nomination. However, as far as the Board being an oligarchy, I am personally dismayed by that statement, as I know that all of us have given up considerable time and energy, and must travel (often at personal expense) to serve this organization. I also know that we are often hard-pressed to find people even willing to serve on the Board, so your characterization of a few of us grasping onto some sort of Society power is particularly irritating; it recalls the criticism the Society received over the choice of New Orleans (as just one example) for OMG, when the critics had absolutely nothing to offer as an alternative. The Board meets once a year at Louisville, and every two years, the Society as a whole (those at OMG, anyway; if you can figure out how to get the entire Society in one place at one time, please let me know) meets to elect officers and vote on any proposed changes to by-laws. ALL members are invited to attend the conference, which includes the Business Meeting, in which any and all members are invited to introduce new business or propose new sites for OMG. I will refer you to the by-laws that are printed in the Durrell Society Membership Directory. It outlines the structure and functions of both the Society at large and the Executive Board. I have just reviewed them again, and I see absolutely nothing in those by-laws that indicate that the Board has either neglected its responsibilities or exceeded its powers. I don?t wish to engage in some sort of personal tit for tat, Bruce. But there are certainly issues with this particular forum, and towards the Society?s stated objective to ?promote the study, understanding, and appreciation of the works of Lawrence Durrell,? it is incumbent upon the entire Society to find ways in which we can accomplish this in an inclusive and civil manner. Best--Pamela J. Francis On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 2:01 PM, wrote: > 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" > To: > 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 > Cc: Bruce Redwine > 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 > 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> > wrote: > > 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. 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 > > To: "ilds at lists.uvic.ca " > > Subject: [ilds] LISTSERV > Message-ID: > 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 > 512/708-8011 FAX > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: 20161207/ec743aa2/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:09:30 -0800 > From: Bruce Redwine > > > To: Sumantra Nag > > Cc: Bruce Redwine > > > Subject: [ilds] ILDS Listserv > Message-ID: <3246813F-49D5-4AD2-B80A-8453DFB964AD at gmail.com 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: 20161207/ea773856/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 05:47:40 +0000 > From: PETER BALDWIN > > > To: "ilds at lists.uvic.ca " > > Subject: Re: [ilds] ILDS Listserv > Message-ID: > GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM 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> 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: 20161210/7dc4d492/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 14:35:12 -0800 > From: Bruce Redwine > To: Sumantra Nag > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] The Function of the ILDS Listserv > Message-ID: > 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 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 > > Cc: Bruce Redwine > > 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 > 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>> wrote: > >>> 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 < > 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. 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 > > >>> To: "ilds at lists.uvic.ca " < > ilds at lists.uvic.ca > > >>> Subject: [ilds] LISTSERV > >>> Message-ID: > >>> 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 > >>> 512/708-8011 FAX > >>> -------------- next part -------------- > >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >>> URL: 20161207/ec743aa2/attachment-0001.html pipermail/ilds/attachments/20161207/ec743aa2/attachment-0001.html>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> > >>> Message: 2 > >>> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:09:30 -0800 > >>> From: Bruce Redwine bredwine1968 at gmail.com>> > >>> To: Sumantra Nag > > >>> Cc: Bruce Redwine bredwine1968 at gmail.com>> > >>> Subject: [ilds] ILDS Listserv > >>> Message-ID: <3246813F-49D5-4AD2-B80A-8453DFB964AD at gmail.com 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: 20161207/ea773856/attachment-0001.html pipermail/ilds/attachments/20161207/ea773856/attachment-0001.html>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> > >>> Message: 3 > >>> Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 05:47:40 +0000 > >>> From: PETER BALDWIN delospeter at hotmail.com>> > >>> To: "ilds at lists.uvic.ca " < > ilds at lists.uvic.ca > > >>> Subject: Re: [ilds] ILDS Listserv > >>> Message-ID: > >>> GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM 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>>> 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 > > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds mailman/listinfo/ilds> > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: 20161210/6d80e3f6/attachment-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 > ************************************ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pamelajofrancis at gmail.com Mon Dec 12 09:02:21 2016 From: pamelajofrancis at gmail.com (Pamela Francis) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:02:21 -0600 Subject: [ilds] Merriane Timko Message-ID: Hi, Merriane! I want to personally thank you for the comments on the functions and purposes of the listserve. I especially appreciate your comments about the organization of the discussion board; I, personally, find it quite difficult to use, which is a reason we are looking for other platforms. I did want to address another issue you brought up, and please note that it is by no means a criticism of your view. But I would like to address the perceived divide between academics and non-academics, especially at OMG. This year, OMG was in Rethymnon on Crete, and it was a truly amazing experience. But I'd like to point out the "balance" between these two "camps," that I believe was, at least to me, beautifully executed at this conference. The conference opened with a personally guided exhibition of the art of Andreas Georgiadis, who has spent much of his career dedicated to capturing Durrell's Alexandria on paper. Andreas stayed with us for the entire conference, and attended almost all sessions, and was a lively participant in all of our other excursions, which included a tour of WWII sites associated with Patrick Leigh Fermor. As for the conference itself, it opened with three keynote addresses, two of which were from Michael Haag and Chris White, neither associated with academia. And now, as I look through the program, I see that four of our moderators are non-academics. Finally, the closing program featured dramatic presentations of stories by Greek writers. Yes, they were college students, but the presentation was not what I would call "academic," nor were the other features of th eprogram, including poetry readings and a tribute to Soad Sobhy, a member who had organized the Alexandria OMG many years ago. My point is not to argue with you Merriane (we missed you this year!), but just to assure anyone here who didn't get to attend, that the Conference organizers are always attuned to providing an experience that appeals to all admirers of Durrell and his work. When I look at the pictures of the conference, I am actually a little surprised by how many participants were not academics, but are rather people (many who I have met before at this very venue!) who show a genuine interest in LD's work and life. I just wanted to clarify this point, because I think providing a fulfilling experience for all admirers of LD is something that our Society does quite well. I hope to see you at the next OMG! Best--Pamela -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gammage.kennedy at gmail.com Mon Dec 12 11:16:33 2016 From: gammage.kennedy at gmail.com (Kennedy Gammage) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:16:33 -0800 Subject: [ilds] ILDS Digest, Vol 116, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Pamela, namaste friendship and respect! Typing this on my phone so please excuse any fat-fingers. I too hope "we may all reach some sort of understanding concerning the existence and purpose of" the ilds listserv. It exists now but the ilds wants it to unexist. Setting aside the red herring of Bruce - is this really about Richard Pine? I hope you would not "repeal & replace" our listserv just to exclude one person. You were repeatedlyoffended by Bruce for no compelling reason. He insulted Facebook users! Please. The listserv "WILL be terminated" and replaced by an unspecified platform "more accessible, searchable, and navigable." However, it will also specify "clear parameters of what should be discussed." "As well as some sort of guidelines as to what are or are not valid points of discussion." Jeez Pamela - how about the new version of Chinese Facebook! : > ) Thanks - Ken On Dec 12, 2016 8:50 AM, "Pamela Francis" wrote: Subject: The Function of the Listserve We may both be guilty, Bruce, of reading implications into statements where there are none; I hope that is the truth, and if so, then we all may reach some sort of understanding concerning the existence and purpose of the ILDS listserve. I will admit that when I read your comments about James Clawson, I certainly believed you were implying that James Clawson and others, by association, are somehow profiting from Durrell studies, but then your later letter states that you have determined that academics don?t participate in online discussions b/c they are saving their ideas for themselves. While relieved that you weren?t singling out one member of the Society, I find your attitude towards this to be not only false (from one conversation you?ve decided all who make their living teaching must somehow be hoarding all their ideas?) but also demeaning. There are many reasons that some of us do not utilize this forum (though I think time is the most significant of all. I, for one, have given several hours to this singular discussion); still, I feel it necessary to respond to some of your comments, Bruce. I do not doubt your genuine dedication to this forum, but I do find some of the assertions made about it and its relationship to both the motives of the Executive Board and some of the members of that board offensive and demanding of response. If Clawson?s use of the phrase ?echo chamber? was unfortunate, I will say that it appears there is at least some common sense by participants that the listserve has lacked luster of late. I believe that you, Bruce, felt that implied that somehow you or a few others were being shut down or shut out from participation in the Society. I certainly found your comments offensive, but I was out of line to say that I would be happy to see it go, implying that the listserve would be terminated. Let me clarify: it WILL be terminated at some point, but in order to move to another platform. I know several here have registered satisfaction with the platform; however, I also know there are other platforms out there that can streamline the discussion experience. I think the moderator would welcome suggestions for other platforms that may make conversations more accessible, searchable, and navigable. As to the decided lull in discussion here, I believe an amount of soul-searching is required to figure out how to jumpstart these discussions. Bill Godshalk was certainly a force of nature, and I envy those of you who participated in that conversation. But we, as a community, need to come to some consensus as to what the function of this board should be. Contrary to limiting the free exchange of ideas, some parameters can make this venue more inclusive and productive. Please note that here I am speaking only for myself as an erstwhile participant, and NOT as a member of the board. One aspect that will have to be addressed is a perceived or real academic/anti-academic rift. Or is that only a symptom of something else? I will note that as a possible contributor, I have felt shut out of this discussion board since very early on. I once tried to enter a conversation and spoke of postcolonial theory and its possibilities, and was shut down immediately with the comment that all theory was useless b/c it imposed readings on texts rather than allowing the text to speak. The criticism may be valid or not, but you can understand my dismay, as well as my unwillingness to contribute anything other than the occasional news item. I perhaps read an implication into your statement concerning James Clawson?s column that was not there, but even if you did not imply that academic research and publishing was ?so much blather,? my own experience on this board has certainly led me to believe in an anti-academic tone in much of the discussion. That, in my world view, is upsetting, but not as much as a tendency towards personal attacks. That is what I found offensive about Bruce?s comments, and what I know to have transpired in some previous posts. Let me remind you of your own words, here, Bruce: You certainly have a right to dislike Facebook and Twitter, Bruce. But instead of just saying that you won?t be using it, you have indulged in a put-down of an entire group of people, including myself and a number of other Society members, accusing us of having a ?craving for fame and recognition? and promoting lazy thinking. I have always believed that critical thinking and discussion can be civil, but in just one post, you have indulged in personally criticizing the Society?s President, as well as a vast number of Society members. The tone of this forum is often offensive, and I believe that you?and any others who attack the persons they disagree with, rather than the critical point--are in part responsible for that. This tone has been the biggest concern to me, and is one reason I would like a major reset of this forum, with clear parameters of what should be discussed, as well as some sort of guidelines as to what are or are not valid points of discussion. As an ExCom, as you call it, I have expressed this opinion to the Board (but I do not act unilaterally, of course), but my experience here is related as a view from a possible, but hesitant contributor. Again, this is not meant to stem the flow of conversation, but to instead, allow it to become a more inclusive venue. As for the ILDS Board, and here I will speak as the Society?s Vice-President, Anne Zahlan has addressed your concern about your nomination. However, as far as the Board being an oligarchy, I am personally dismayed by that statement, as I know that all of us have given up considerable time and energy, and must travel (often at personal expense) to serve this organization. I also know that we are often hard-pressed to find people even willing to serve on the Board, so your characterization of a few of us grasping onto some sort of Society power is particularly irritating; it recalls the criticism the Society received over the choice of New Orleans (as just one example) for OMG, when the critics had absolutely nothing to offer as an alternative. The Board meets once a year at Louisville, and every two years, the Society as a whole (those at OMG, anyway; if you can figure out how to get the entire Society in one place at one time, please let me know) meets to elect officers and vote on any proposed changes to by-laws. ALL members are invited to attend the conference, which includes the Business Meeting, in which any and all members are invited to introduce new business or propose new sites for OMG. I will refer you to the by-laws that are printed in the Durrell Society Membership Directory. It outlines the structure and functions of both the Society at large and the Executive Board. I have just reviewed them again, and I see absolutely nothing in those by-laws that indicate that the Board has either neglected its responsibilities or exceeded its powers. I don?t wish to engage in some sort of personal tit for tat, Bruce. But there are certainly issues with this particular forum, and towards the Society?s stated objective to ?promote the study, understanding, and appreciation of the works of Lawrence Durrell,? it is incumbent upon the entire Society to find ways in which we can accomplish this in an inclusive and civil manner. Best--Pamela J. Francis On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 2:01 PM, wrote: > 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" > To: > 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 > Cc: Bruce Redwine > 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 > 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> > wrote: > > 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. 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 > > To: "ilds at lists.uvic.ca " > > Subject: [ilds] LISTSERV > Message-ID: > 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 > 512/708-8011 FAX > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: ec743aa2/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:09:30 -0800 > From: Bruce Redwine > > > To: Sumantra Nag > > Cc: Bruce Redwine > > > Subject: [ilds] ILDS Listserv > Message-ID: <3246813F-49D5-4AD2-B80A-8453DFB964AD at gmail.com 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: ea773856/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 05:47:40 +0000 > From: PETER BALDWIN > > > To: "ilds at lists.uvic.ca " > > Subject: Re: [ilds] ILDS Listserv > Message-ID: > 3.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM D82D6432006C8840 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> 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: 7dc4d492/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 14:35:12 -0800 > From: Bruce Redwine > To: Sumantra Nag > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] The Function of the ILDS Listserv > Message-ID: > 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 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 > > Cc: Bruce Redwine > > 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 > 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>> wrote: > >>> 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 < > 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. 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 > > >>> To: "ilds at lists.uvic.ca " < > ilds at lists.uvic.ca > > >>> Subject: [ilds] LISTSERV > >>> Message-ID: > >>> 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 > >>> 512/708-8011 FAX > >>> -------------- next part -------------- > >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >>> URL: ec743aa2/attachment-0001.html l/ilds/attachments/20161207/ec743aa2/attachment-0001.html>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> > >>> Message: 2 > >>> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:09:30 -0800 > >>> From: Bruce Redwine bredwine1968 at gmail.com>> > >>> To: Sumantra Nag > > >>> Cc: Bruce Redwine bredwine1968 at gmail.com>> > >>> Subject: [ilds] ILDS Listserv > >>> Message-ID: <3246813F-49D5-4AD2-B80A-8453DFB964AD at gmail.com 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: ea773856/attachment-0001.html l/ilds/attachments/20161207/ea773856/attachment-0001.html>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> > >>> Message: 3 > >>> Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 05:47:40 +0000 > >>> From: PETER BALDWIN delospeter at hotmail.com>> > >>> To: "ilds at lists.uvic.ca " < > ilds at lists.uvic.ca > > >>> Subject: Re: [ilds] ILDS Listserv > >>> Message-ID: > >>> 23.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM D82D6432006C8840 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>>> 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 > > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds < > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds> > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: 6d80e3f6/attachment-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 > ************************************ > _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pamelajofrancis at gmail.com Mon Dec 12 13:16:18 2016 From: pamelajofrancis at gmail.com (Pamela Francis) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 15:16:18 -0600 Subject: [ilds] General Questions Concerning the Listserve Message-ID: Okay, Ken (and thanks for your comments) and others, I'll ask, then: What IS it you want the listserve to do? Isn't one of the complaints that there isn't enough discussion? How do you promote discussion among people who feel completely shut out of the process? To what do you attribute this lull, and what are suggestions for jumpstarting discussion? Don't most listserves/discussion boards, etc. have parameters and purposes? What is so horrible about UPGRADING a venue? (Should we all hold on to our dot matrix printers too?) Finally, what do the regular participants here perceive to be the duties of Society? What exactly do we do (or don't do) that is so offensive? What other societies are you involved with and how are they significantly different? This is the only author-society I am involved in, so I genuinely don't know--I know some of my colleagues are in other societies and have not noted any significant differences. So this is not a flippant or angry question, but a genuine one. I'll note that in my time in the Society, and at the OMGs I've attended, few, if any of these types of concerns have been broached in the meetings. So I am rather curious. And just one clarification: I apologize if it appears I'm attacking Bruce, per se, but ad hominim attacks, whether against the moderator, the current Society President, or Facebook users (which includes the Society, which I do not feel is "pandering" but is rather utilizing another venue to attract those interested in Durrell--an objective which I believe it has done without somehow lessening the current state of Durrell studies. Neither I nor anyone else demanded that you all go get a Facebook page--I just offered those as options or additions to other forms of communication. I don't think reminding people that we have FB and Twitter is any attempt to dumb down Durrell.) The comments aimed at James Clawson I find more serious, and yes, I resent the implication that the ILDS Board, is some sort of oligarchy, when, as far as I can tell, no one has clearly stated what it is they want from the Society or the Board. If I have come across as angry, I do apologize; I will admit that my hackles rise when people whom I know to have the best interests of the ILDS at heart are accused of somehow making some sort of power play--to what end, I have no idea. This has taken way too much of my time, which again, I will note is the main reason there isn't a lot of contribution from some members, certainly more so than that we don't want to "share" our ideas (if you attend OMGs, you know that there is plenty of sharing of ideas, especially in cafes with a big bottle of plonk on the table!). I am genuinely interested in the answers to the questions I've asked above, and will check back to see what people do have to say about these very real issues, but due to time constraints and my desire to avoid the risk of more conflict, I will (or at least will attempt to) refrain from comment. Best to all---pamela -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From skybluepress at skybluepress.com Mon Dec 12 14:29:54 2016 From: skybluepress at skybluepress.com (Sky Blue Press) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 16:29:54 -0600 Subject: [ilds] Who are we? Message-ID: <00a301d254c7$435eb130$ca1c1390$@skybluepress.com> I?ve been on the listserv for more than a decade, and I have found it to be akin to caf? conversations in Paris-between-the-wars. Here, people, whenever they choose to, share their opinions, ideas, and experiences revolving around LD. I come here to learn things, and it?s a great way to share my work on one of the musketeers, Anais Nin. While I have Nin-related Twitter and Facebook accounts, a blog, a literary journal, and a podcast, I still find this forum valuable, even if I rarely join in on the conversations. Personally, I would hate to see it go unless whatever replaced it was as easy, free and open as this. Now, occasionally, just as in the cafes, members clash, have disputes, arguments, makes accusations and whatnot, but I reckon about 95% of the time the conversations are constructive, civil, and, for me, informative. I wouldn?t have been bothering for 10 years if that were not the case. I think the whole thing is overblown, and I also think to single out Bruce is totally unfair. He is, in my opinion, one of the most important members of the group?there have been many cases where the list seems dead, and then he poses a question or makes a comment and breathes new life into it. The thing that bothers me the most, though, is this sudden division between academics and non-academics, as if they were classes or castes. It implies an attitude problem. It also infers the notion of one is better than the other. For Christ?s sake, according to this classification, Larry and Gerry were ?non-academics.? Which is hilarious. So were Miller and Nin. It also makes it sound like one ?group? or the other ?owns? Larry. I wonder what he would think about this. My contributions to OMG were never questioned as to whether I had this or that credential, but were judged by the work itself. I note that Pamela makes a point of talking about this or that ?non-academic? delivering papers, etc., as if this were some kind of big deal. It never used to be, at least not when I joined back in the 1990s, and if it was, nobody ever mentioned it to me. What a shame and disservice it would be to those (few) of us who think enough of LD to belong to the Society in the first place to group its members and pit them against each other. Who are we? People who have one thing in common: Lawrence Durrell. It's as simple as that. Anyway, that?s my two cents. I?ve got the next round. Paul From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Mon Dec 12 12:16:52 2016 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 12:16:52 -0800 Subject: [ilds] Follow-up to Fate of the ILDS listserv In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for the reply, Pamela. I?ll respond in due course. Have a good holiday, Bruce > On Dec 12, 2016, at 8:41 AM, Pamela Francis wrote: > > Subject: The Function of the Listserve > > We may both be guilty, Bruce, of reading implications into statements where there are none; I hope that is the truth, and if so, then we all may reach some sort of understanding concerning the existence and purpose of the ILDS listserve. I will admit that when I read your comments about James Clawson, I certainly believed you were implying that James Clawson and others, by association, are somehow profiting from Durrell studies, but then your later letter states that you have determined that academics don?t participate in online discussions b/c they are saving their ideas for themselves. While relieved that you weren?t singling out one member of the Society, I find your attitude towards this to be not only false (from one conversation you?ve decided all who make their living teaching must somehow be hoarding all their ideas?) but also demeaning. There are many reasons that some of us do not utilize this forum (though I think time is the most significant of all. I, for one, have given several hours to this singular discussion); still, I feel it necessary to respond to some of your comments, Bruce. I do not doubt your genuine dedication to this forum, but I do find some of the assertions made about it and its relationship to both the motives of the Executive Board and some of the members of that board offensive and demanding of response. > > > If Clawson?s use of the phrase ?echo chamber? was unfortunate, I will say that it appears there is at least some common sense by participants that the listserve has lacked luster of late. I believe that you, Bruce, felt that implied that somehow you or a few others were being shut down or shut out from participation in the Society. I certainly found your comments offensive, but I was out of line to say that I would be happy to see it go, implying that the listserve would be terminated. Let me clarify: it WILL be terminated at some point, but in order to move to another platform. I know several here have registered satisfaction with the platform; however, I also know there are other platforms out there that can streamline the discussion experience. I think the moderator would welcome suggestions for other platforms that may make conversations more accessible, searchable, and navigable. > > > > As to the decided lull in discussion here, I believe an amount of soul-searching is required to figure out how to jumpstart these discussions. Bill Godshalk was certainly a force of nature, and I envy those of you who participated in that conversation. But we, as a community, need to come to some consensus as to what the function of this board should be. Contrary to limiting the free exchange of ideas, some parameters can make this venue more inclusive and productive. Please note that here I am speaking only for myself as an erstwhile participant, and NOT as a member of the board. > > > One aspect that will have to be addressed is a perceived or real academic/anti-academic rift. Or is that only a symptom of something else? I will note that as a possible contributor, I have felt shut out of this discussion board since very early on. I once tried to enter a conversation and spoke of postcolonial theory and its possibilities, and was shut down immediately with the comment that all theory was useless b/c it imposed readings on texts rather than allowing the text to speak. The criticism may be valid or not, but you can understand my dismay, as well as my unwillingness to contribute anything other than the occasional news item. I perhaps read an implication into your statement concerning James Clawson?s column that was not there, but even if you did not imply that academic research and publishing was ?so much blather,? my own experience on this board has certainly led me to believe in an anti-academic tone in much of the discussion. > > > > That, in my world view, is upsetting, but not as much as a tendency towards personal attacks. That is what I found offensive about Bruce?s comments, and what I know to have transpired in some previous posts. Let me remind you of your own words, here, Bruce: > > > > > > > > You certainly have a right to dislike Facebook and Twitter, Bruce. But instead of just saying that you won?t be using it, you have indulged in a put-down of an entire group of people, including myself and a number of other Society members, accusing us of having a ?craving for fame and recognition? and promoting lazy thinking. I have always believed that critical thinking and discussion can be civil, but in just one post, you have indulged in personally criticizing the Society?s President, as well as a vast number of Society members. The tone of this forum is often offensive, and I believe that you?and any others who attack the persons they disagree with, rather than the critical point--are in part responsible for that. This tone has been the biggest concern to me, and is one reason I would like a major reset of this forum, with clear parameters of what should be discussed, as well as some sort of guidelines as to what are or are not valid points of discussion. As an ExCom, as you call it, I have expressed this opinion to the Board (but I do not act unilaterally, of course), but my experience here is related as a view from a possible, but hesitant contributor. Again, this is not meant to stem the flow of conversation, but to instead, allow it to become a more inclusive venue. > > > As for the ILDS Board, and here I will speak as the Society?s Vice-President, Anne Zahlan has addressed your concern about your nomination. However, as far as the Board being an oligarchy, I am personally dismayed by that statement, as I know that all of us have given up considerable time and energy, and must travel (often at personal expense) to serve this organization. I also know that we are often hard-pressed to find people even willing to serve on the Board, so your characterization of a few of us grasping onto some sort of Society power is particularly irritating; it recalls the criticism the Society received over the choice of New Orleans (as just one example) for OMG, when the critics had absolutely nothing to offer as an alternative. The Board meets once a year at Louisville, and every two years, the Society as a whole (those at OMG, anyway; if you can figure out how to get the entire Society in one place at one time, please let me know) meets to elect officers and vote on any proposed changes to by-laws. ALL members are invited to attend the conference, which includes the Business Meeting, in which any and all members are invited to introduce new business or propose new sites for OMG. > > > > I will refer you to the by-laws that are printed in the Durrell Society Membership Directory. It outlines the structure and functions of both the Society at large and the Executive Board. I have just reviewed them again, and I see absolutely nothing in those by-laws that indicate that the Board has either neglected its responsibilities or exceeded its powers. > > > I don?t wish to engage in some sort of personal tit for tat, Bruce. But there are certainly issues with this particular forum, and towards the Society?s stated objective to ?promote the study, understanding, and appreciation of the works of Lawrence Durrell,? it is incumbent upon the entire Society to find ways in which we can accomplish this in an inclusive and civil manner. > > > > Best--Pamela J. Francis > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 2:01 PM, > wrote: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 16:23:46 -0500 > From: "Anne Zahlan" > > To: > > 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. > > > > > > > > > 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 > . 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 > > 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. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pamelajofrancis at gmail.com Mon Dec 12 20:51:46 2016 From: pamelajofrancis at gmail.com (Pamela Francis) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 22:51:46 -0600 Subject: [ilds] who are we? Message-ID: Hi, Paul--good to hear from you. I appreciate your comments, but only want to address my tendency to talk of "non-academics" delivering papers, etc. I was responding to Merriane Timko, who said she would like to see more of an integration of the two groups. I only gave the list of who did what to demonstrate that I don't think this rift exists at OMG. I've certainly never experienced it there before, but since there was a comment on it, I felt it should be addressed. Any other rift that exists between two camps, I agree, is silly, given that, as you pointed out, Larry was not an academic. I have already expressed my own experiences on this discussion board, and yes, I took exception to the implication that J. Clawson was somehow riding the Durrell train to tenure and promotion; I have already apologized to Bruce for possibly misreading his implication there. I have never experienced any sort of comment or implication of this sort outside of this page, and, perhaps, my being shot down a couple of times was just a bad day for someone who really hates theory (and, for that matter, may no longer be a member of this discussion board). My excessive non-ac/ac demonstration was for Ms. Timko, to illustrate that I don't believe there is such a divide in the Society as a whole. By the way, kudos on the Anais Nin blog--I hope I did not step out of bounds by giving unsolicited support to it in the Herald. It's a very valuable resource for anyone interested in Nin. Best always to you (and Cafe in Space!)--Pamela -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dtart at bigpond.net.au Mon Dec 12 21:21:31 2016 From: dtart at bigpond.net.au (Denise Tart & David Green) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 16:21:31 +1100 Subject: [ilds] Lawrence Durrell scores again Message-ID: On a lighter note to the recent debates, I was driving home from work today when, in the context of travel and writing/ reading, a presenter on national radio here in Sydney kicked off the discussion with her delight in the Alexandria Quartet which she had read as a young student and which led to a rewarding sojourn in Alexandria and Greek Island where the presenter tried to experience these places as if the books were a real experience to be lived - of course they are and Durrell, pronounced DuRELL in Australia, does this so well. So, very pleased to see old LD getting a plug on the national broadcaster. David Sent from my iPad From alfandary at gmail.com Mon Dec 12 21:53:26 2016 From: alfandary at gmail.com (Rony Alfandary) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 07:53:26 +0200 Subject: [ilds] General Questions Concerning the Listserve In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: good morning all, I have been a member of ILDS since 2011 and have greatly benefited from being part of discussions here and face-to-face during the London conference. i would hate to see this forum close. i am fairly well versed in the various forms of internet groups and am am also a member of the FB group. i don't think it matters where we talk to one another. If anyone has difficulty upgrading the platform, ILDS should think of a way of assisting them to get acquainted with the new platform. no big deal. Pamela, you asked a direct question concerning what we want of ILDS and I venture a direct answer, even though it addresses my own specific need (wish) of ILDS. as you may know, I have written and published a study of the Quartet in Hebrew which has come out in Israel last week. I would wish ILDS to support such a venture by, for instance, buying a bulk quantity of books and distributing them and also to sponsor an English translation of the work, so it can be enjoyed by people who cannot read Hebrew. I wonder if there are other writers here who could envision ILDS supporting their writing about Durrell. am I wrong in suggesting that that could be one of ILDS goals? carrying on Durrell's work? so, excuse my CHUTZPA. i hope it has not gone over into HUBRIS.... best, Rony *Rony Alfandary*, Ph.D. *Clinical Social Worker, Psychoanalytic Psychotherapist* Postgraduate Program of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy Dept. of Social Work Bar-Ilan University Ramat-Gan 51905 On 12 December 2016 at 23:16, Pamela Francis wrote: > Okay, Ken (and thanks for your comments) and others, I'll ask, then: > > What IS it you want the listserve to do? Isn't one of the complaints that > there isn't enough discussion? > > How do you promote discussion among people who feel completely shut out of > the process? To what do you attribute this lull, and what are suggestions > for jumpstarting discussion? > > Don't most listserves/discussion boards, etc. have parameters and > purposes? > > What is so horrible about UPGRADING a venue? (Should we all hold on to our > dot matrix printers too?) > > Finally, what do the regular participants here perceive to be the duties > of Society? What exactly do we do (or don't do) that is so offensive? What > other societies are you involved with and how are they significantly > different? This is the only author-society I am involved in, so I genuinely > don't know--I know some of my colleagues are in other societies and have > not noted any significant differences. So this is not a flippant or angry > question, but a genuine one. I'll note that in my time in the Society, and > at the OMGs I've attended, few, if any of these types of concerns have been > broached in the meetings. So I am rather curious. > > And just one clarification: I apologize if it appears I'm attacking Bruce, > per se, but ad hominim attacks, whether against the moderator, the current > Society President, or Facebook users (which includes the Society, which I > do not feel is "pandering" but is rather utilizing another venue to attract > those interested in Durrell--an objective which I believe it has done > without somehow lessening the current state of Durrell studies. Neither I > nor anyone else demanded that you all go get a Facebook page--I just > offered those as options or additions to other forms of communication. I > don't think reminding people that we have FB and Twitter is any attempt to > dumb down Durrell.) The comments aimed at James Clawson I find more > serious, and yes, I resent the implication that the ILDS Board, is some > sort of oligarchy, when, as far as I can tell, no one has clearly stated > what it is they want from the Society or the Board. > > If I have come across as angry, I do apologize; I will admit that my > hackles rise when people whom I know to have the best interests of the ILDS > at heart are accused of somehow making some sort of power play--to what > end, I have no idea. > > This has taken way too much of my time, which again, I will note is the > main reason there isn't a lot of contribution from some members, certainly > more so than that we don't want to "share" our ideas (if you attend OMGs, > you know that there is plenty of sharing of ideas, especially in cafes with > a big bottle of plonk on the table!). I am genuinely interested in the > answers to the questions I've asked above, and will check back to see what > people do have to say about these very real issues, but due to time > constraints and my desire to avoid the risk of more conflict, I will (or at > least will attempt to) refrain from comment. > > Best to all---pamela > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From delospeter at hotmail.com Mon Dec 12 23:40:17 2016 From: delospeter at hotmail.com (PETER BALDWIN) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 07:40:17 +0000 Subject: [ilds] General Questions Concerning the Listserve In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Here goes at some listserve rules: 1 . Purpose - to share information and views about LD 2. At all times contributors must be respectful to each other* 3. Contributions be limited to c200 words on the 'more is less' rule *ie say nothing which you would not say face to face (in a Paris cafe!) to another contributor. ( contributors can take up issues with each other privately off list serve) Additional comments: (A) - ILDS is bound to SEEM academically biased since academia is the only cultural vehicle for the exchanges we seek, i.e., for the most part, the essay. Academic gatherings are also the most convenient way for the committee to meet. (B) - appointment of a non-academic contributor as moderator might help Voila - tous mes pensees sur ce subjet. Peter( non-academic and longest- standing, I think, contributor to Herald) Sent from my iPhone On 13 Dec 2016, at 06:02, Rony Alfandary > wrote: good morning all, I have been a member of ILDS since 2011 and have greatly benefited from being part of discussions here and face-to-face during the London conference. i would hate to see this forum close. i am fairly well versed in the various forms of internet groups and am am also a member of the FB group. i don't think it matters where we talk to one another. If anyone has difficulty upgrading the platform, ILDS should think of a way of assisting them to get acquainted with the new platform. no big deal. Pamela, you asked a direct question concerning what we want of ILDS and I venture a direct answer, even though it addresses my own specific need (wish) of ILDS. as you may know, I have written and published a study of the Quartet in Hebrew which has come out in Israel last week. I would wish ILDS to support such a venture by, for instance, buying a bulk quantity of books and distributing them and also to sponsor an English translation of the work, so it can be enjoyed by people who cannot read Hebrew. I wonder if there are other writers here who could envision ILDS supporting their writing about Durrell. am I wrong in suggesting that that could be one of ILDS goals? carrying on Durrell's work? so, excuse my CHUTZPA. i hope it has not gone over into HUBRIS.... best, Rony Rony Alfandary, Ph.D. Clinical Social Worker, Psychoanalytic Psychotherapist Postgraduate Program of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy Dept. of Social Work Bar-Ilan University Ramat-Gan 51905 On 12 December 2016 at 23:16, Pamela Francis > wrote: Okay, Ken (and thanks for your comments) and others, I'll ask, then: What IS it you want the listserve to do? Isn't one of the complaints that there isn't enough discussion? How do you promote discussion among people who feel completely shut out of the process? To what do you attribute this lull, and what are suggestions for jumpstarting discussion? Don't most listserves/discussion boards, etc. have parameters and purposes? What is so horrible about UPGRADING a venue? (Should we all hold on to our dot matrix printers too?) Finally, what do the regular participants here perceive to be the duties of Society? What exactly do we do (or don't do) that is so offensive? What other societies are you involved with and how are they significantly different? This is the only author-society I am involved in, so I genuinely don't know--I know some of my colleagues are in other societies and have not noted any significant differences. So this is not a flippant or angry question, but a genuine one. I'll note that in my time in the Society, and at the OMGs I've attended, few, if any of these types of concerns have been broached in the meetings. So I am rather curious. And just one clarification: I apologize if it appears I'm attacking Bruce, per se, but ad hominim attacks, whether against the moderator, the current Society President, or Facebook users (which includes the Society, which I do not feel is "pandering" but is rather utilizing another venue to attract those interested in Durrell--an objective which I believe it has done without somehow lessening the current state of Durrell studies. Neither I nor anyone else demanded that you all go get a Facebook page--I just offered those as options or additions to other forms of communication. I don't think reminding people that we have FB and Twitter is any attempt to dumb down Durrell.) The comments aimed at James Clawson I find more serious, and yes, I resent the implication that the ILDS Board, is some sort of oligarchy, when, as far as I can tell, no one has clearly stated what it is they want from the Society or the Board. If I have come across as angry, I do apologize; I will admit that my hackles rise when people whom I know to have the best interests of the ILDS at heart are accused of somehow making some sort of power play--to what end, I have no idea. This has taken way too much of my time, which again, I will note is the main reason there isn't a lot of contribution from some members, certainly more so than that we don't want to "share" our ideas (if you attend OMGs, you know that there is plenty of sharing of ideas, especially in cafes with a big bottle of plonk on the table!). I am genuinely interested in the answers to the questions I've asked above, and will check back to see what people do have to say about these very real issues, but due to time constraints and my desire to avoid the risk of more conflict, I will (or at least will attempt to) refrain from comment. Best to all---pamela _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc at marcpiel.fr Tue Dec 13 03:14:04 2016 From: marc at marcpiel.fr (MarcPiel) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 12:14:04 +0100 Subject: [ilds] Lawrence Durrell scores again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <34D0A9AB-DD0F-4A77-B084-55DFB771C4BC@marcpiel.fr> BRAVO! Envoy? de mon iPad Le 13 d?c. 2016 ? 06:21, Denise Tart & David Green a ?crit : On a lighter note to the recent debates, I was driving home from work today when, in the context of travel and writing/ reading, a presenter on national radio here in Sydney kicked off the discussion with her delight in the Alexandria Quartet which she had read as a young student and which led to a rewarding sojourn in Alexandria and Greek Island where the presenter tried to experience these places as if the books were a real experience to be lived - of course they are and Durrell, pronounced DuRELL in Australia, does this so well. So, very pleased to see old LD getting a plug on the national broadcaster. David Sent from my iPad _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From marc at marcpiel.fr Tue Dec 13 03:45:40 2016 From: marc at marcpiel.fr (MarcPiel) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 12:45:40 +0100 Subject: [ilds] Who are we? In-Reply-To: <00a301d254c7$435eb130$ca1c1390$@skybluepress.com> References: <00a301d254c7$435eb130$ca1c1390$@skybluepress.com> Message-ID: Worth far more than 2 cents. Thank you! Marc Envoy? de mon iPad Le 12 d?c. 2016 ? 23:29, Sky Blue Press a ?crit : I?ve been on the listserv for more than a decade, and I have found it to be akin to caf? conversations in Paris-between-the-wars. Here, people, whenever they choose to, share their opinions, ideas, and experiences revolving around LD. I come here to learn things, and it?s a great way to share my work on one of the musketeers, Anais Nin. While I have Nin-related Twitter and Facebook accounts, a blog, a literary journal, and a podcast, I still find this forum valuable, even if I rarely join in on the conversations. Personally, I would hate to see it go unless whatever replaced it was as easy, free and open as this. Now, occasionally, just as in the cafes, members clash, have disputes, arguments, makes accusations and whatnot, but I reckon about 95% of the time the conversations are constructive, civil, and, for me, informative. I wouldn?t have been bothering for 10 years if that were not the case. I think the whole thing is overblown, and I also think to single out Bruce is totally unfair. He is, in my opinion, one of the most important members of the group?there have been many cases where the list seems dead, and then he poses a question or makes a comment and breathes new life into it. The thing that bothers me the most, though, is this sudden division between academics and non-academics, as if they were classes or castes. It implies an attitude problem. It also infers the notion of one is better than the other. For Christ?s sake, according to this classification, Larry and Gerry were ?non-academics.? Which is hilarious. So were Miller and Nin. It also makes it sound like one ?group? or the other ?owns? Larry. I wonder what he would think about this. My contributions to OMG were never questioned as to whether I had this or that credential, but were judged by the work itself. I note that Pamela makes a point of talking about this or that ?non-academic? delivering papers, etc., as if this were some kind of big deal. It never used to be, at least not when I joined back in the 1990s, and if it was, nobody ever mentioned it to me. What a shame and disservice it would be to those (few) of us who think enough of LD to belong to the Society in the first place to group its members and pit them against each other. Who are we? People who have one thing in common: Lawrence Durrell. It's as simple as that. Anyway, that?s my two cents. I?ve got the next round. Paul _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Tue Dec 13 07:47:18 2016 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 07:47:18 -0800 Subject: [ilds] General Questions Concerning the Listserve In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Below are some interlinear comments on Peter Baldwin?s proposal. Basically I?m in agreement. Bruce > On Dec 12, 2016, at 11:40 PM, PETER BALDWIN wrote: > > Here goes at some listserve rules: > > 1 . Purpose - to share information and views about LD 1a. Yes. I?d also include Gerald and those in the Durrell circle. > > 2. At all times contributors must be respectful to each other* 2a. Yes. But ?respectful? is open to definition. My definition includes the avoidance of invective. It does not mean withholding opinions (which, of course, is also open definition?one man?s opinion is another man?s offense). Using the analogy of the French caf?, the French are famous for being highly argumentative. I imagine their arguments get rather heated, even on a face-to-face basis. > > 3. Contributions be limited to c200 words on the ?more is less? rule 3a. Concision?yes. Word limits?no. I generally try to stick to the 200-word rule, but exceptions will occur. These are rare, however. > > *ie say nothing which you would not say face to face (in a Paris cafe!) to another contributor. ( contributors can take up issues with each other privately off list serve) > > Additional comments: > > (A) - ILDS is bound to SEEM academically biased since academia is the only cultural vehicle for the exchanges we seek, i.e., for the most part, the essay. Academic gatherings are also the most convenient way for the committee to meet. Yes. I see the listserv as a forum leading to the ?essay,? the main vehicle for one?s ideas. > > (B) - appointment of a non-academic contributor as moderator might help Absolutely. > > Voila - tous mes pensees sur ce subjet. > > Peter( non-academic and longest- standing, I think, contributor to Herald) > > Sent from my iPhone > From delospeter at hotmail.com Tue Dec 13 08:06:36 2016 From: delospeter at hotmail.com (PETER BALDWIN) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 16:06:36 +0000 Subject: [ilds] General Questions Concerning the Listserve In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Thanks, Bruce Peter Sent from my iPhone > On 13 Dec 2016, at 16:04, Bruce Redwine wrote: > > Below are some interlinear comments on Peter Baldwin?s proposal. Basically I?m in agreement. > > Bruce > > > >> On Dec 12, 2016, at 11:40 PM, PETER BALDWIN wrote: >> >> Here goes at some listserve rules: >> >> 1 . Purpose - to share information and views about LD > > > 1a. Yes. I?d also include Gerald and those in the Durrell circle. > >> >> 2. At all times contributors must be respectful to each other* > > > 2a. Yes. But ?respectful? is open to definition. My definition includes the avoidance of invective. It does not mean withholding opinions (which, of course, is also open definition?one man?s opinion is another man?s offense). Using the analogy of the French caf?, the French are famous for being highly argumentative. I imagine their arguments get rather heated, even on a face-to-face basis. > > >> >> 3. Contributions be limited to c200 words on the ?more is less? rule > > > 3a. Concision?yes. Word limits?no. I generally try to stick to the 200-word rule, but exceptions will occur. These are rare, however. > >> >> *ie say nothing which you would not say face to face (in a Paris cafe!) to another contributor. ( contributors can take up issues with each other privately off list serve) >> >> Additional comments: >> >> (A) - ILDS is bound to SEEM academically biased since academia is the only cultural vehicle for the exchanges we seek, i.e., for the most part, the essay. Academic gatherings are also the most convenient way for the committee to meet. > > > Yes. I see the listserv as a forum leading to the ?essay,? the main vehicle for one?s ideas. > >> >> (B) - appointment of a non-academic contributor as moderator might help > > > Absolutely. > >> >> Voila - tous mes pensees sur ce subjet. >> >> Peter( non-academic and longest- standing, I think, contributor to Herald) >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From pamelajofrancis at gmail.com Tue Dec 13 09:26:24 2016 From: pamelajofrancis at gmail.com (Pamela Francis) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 11:26:24 -0600 Subject: [ilds] Peter's answers to Questions concerning the Listserve Message-ID: Yes, Peter! What a way to cut through all the "stuff" and get to the point! Great, simple, guidelines. I am also interested in the possibility of a non-Board member here (I'm thinking, and I could be wrong, that the division I sense may not be as much "academic" as it is ExCom/Member. I really don't like to think that way, b/c again, I've never seen any indication of it, but in at least two comments recently, I have sensed some sort of wariness towards the Executive Committee. Of course, this means removing James Gifford, who I think we all agree has done a remarkable and very patient job of herding all these Durrellian cats. I hope you folks will continue to discuss some of these guidelines, with the purpose of not shutting down conversation, but to open it up to more participants. I especially like Peter's comment that personal issues should be dealt with away from the general discussion. Happy holidays to all! pamela -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From delospeter at hotmail.com Tue Dec 13 09:33:06 2016 From: delospeter at hotmail.com (PETER BALDWIN) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 17:33:06 +0000 Subject: [ilds] Peter's answers to Questions concerning the Listserve In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Pamela- and nothing I suggest detracts from Jamie's diligence in moderating the exchanges Peter Sent from my iPhone > On 13 Dec 2016, at 17:29, Pamela Francis wrote: > > Yes, Peter! What a way to cut through all the "stuff" and get to the point! Great, simple, guidelines. I am also interested in the possibility of a non-Board member here (I'm thinking, and I could be wrong, that the division I sense may not be as much "academic" as it is ExCom/Member. I really don't like to think that way, b/c again, I've never seen any indication of it, but in at least two comments recently, I have sensed some sort of wariness towards the Executive Committee. Of course, this means removing James Gifford, who I think we all agree has done a remarkable and very patient job of herding all these Durrellian cats. I hope you folks will continue to discuss some of these guidelines, with the purpose of not shutting down conversation, but to open it up to more participants. > > I especially like Peter's comment that personal issues should be dealt with away from the general discussion. > > > Happy holidays to all! pamela > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Tue Dec 13 10:12:19 2016 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 10:12:19 -0800 Subject: [ilds] Peter's answers to Questions concerning the Listserve In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47FDA587-868F-4092-A33F-F85D08D40B39@earthlink.net> Let me clarify my previous error. I agree about James Gifford?s skills as a moderator. I see no need for a change here. More importantly, I think the ExCom needs a lay person or persons among its members. I don?t recall the total composition of that committee. Perhaps that can be provided. It would be useful to have the officers of the Society listed and identified on the ILDS website. Bruce > On Dec 13, 2016, at 9:33 AM, PETER BALDWIN wrote: > > Thanks, Pamela- and nothing I suggest detracts from Jamie's diligence in moderating the exchanges > > Peter > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 13 Dec 2016, at 17:29, Pamela Francis wrote: >> >> Yes, Peter! What a way to cut through all the "stuff" and get to the point! Great, simple, guidelines. I am also interested in the possibility of a non-Board member here (I'm thinking, and I could be wrong, that the division I sense may not be as much "academic" as it is ExCom/Member. I really don't like to think that way, b/c again, I've never seen any indication of it, but in at least two comments recently, I have sensed some sort of wariness towards the Executive Committee. Of course, this means removing James Gifford, who I think we all agree has done a remarkable and very patient job of herding all these Durrellian cats. I hope you folks will continue to discuss some of these guidelines, with the purpose of not shutting down conversation, but to open it up to more participants. >> >> I especially like Peter's comment that personal issues should be dealt with away from the general discussion. >> >> >> Happy holidays to all! pamela >> From zahlan at earthlink.net Tue Dec 13 10:25:27 2016 From: zahlan at earthlink.net (Anne Zahlan) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 13:25:27 -0500 Subject: [ilds] Lawrence Durrell scores again In-Reply-To: <34D0A9AB-DD0F-4A77-B084-55DFB771C4BC@marcpiel.fr> References: <34D0A9AB-DD0F-4A77-B084-55DFB771C4BC@marcpiel.fr> Message-ID: <000e01d2556e$4759d9c0$d60d8d40$@earthlink.net> Thanks to Marc for his happy news--much needed in these dark days. If the question of to list-serve or not to list-serve is far from settled, there is no question as to why reading Durrell is valuable for us all. Anne -----Original Message----- From: ILDS [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of MarcPiel Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 6:14 AM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] Lawrence Durrell scores again BRAVO! Envoy? de mon iPad Le 13 d?c. 2016 ? 06:21, Denise Tart & David Green a ?crit : On a lighter note to the recent debates, I was driving home from work today when, in the context of travel and writing/ reading, a presenter on national radio here in Sydney kicked off the discussion with her delight in the Alexandria Quartet which she had read as a young student and which led to a rewarding sojourn in Alexandria and Greek Island where the presenter tried to experience these places as if the books were a real experience to be lived - of course they are and Durrell, pronounced DuRELL in Australia, does this so well. So, very pleased to see old LD getting a plug on the national broadcaster. David Sent from my iPad _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From pamelajofrancis at gmail.com Tue Dec 13 11:20:37 2016 From: pamelajofrancis at gmail.com (Pamela Francis) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 13:20:37 -0600 Subject: [ilds] Bruce's reply and suggestion Message-ID: I can't tell you all how relieved I am that we have come to some consensus (not final, I'm sure, but we're getting there) about purpose and organization of the listserve. I think we should ask James Gifford's opinion on all this, since he is our current moderator. I have never had a problem with James, but I was just throwing out ways to make everyone feel a bit more comfortable. That we can discuss later. I know the names of the Executive Committee members were listed in the newest Herald, but admittedly, they were not accompanied by CVs or resumes; here we have another issue entirely, which is that of people's privacy. I am not concerned at all, given that my picture, name, bio, etc. is all over the internet, but we have some members who are understandably reticent to reveal much personal history. I will drop a line to the Board, though, to see what we can come up with that will "introduce" everyone there to everyone on the listserve. Off to give my Shakespeare final--wishing you all the best--pamela -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dtart at bigpond.net.au Tue Dec 13 11:35:32 2016 From: dtart at bigpond.net.au (Denise Tart & David Green) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 06:35:32 +1100 Subject: [ilds] Lawrence Durrell scores again In-Reply-To: <000e01d2556e$4759d9c0$d60d8d40$@earthlink.net> References: <34D0A9AB-DD0F-4A77-B084-55DFB771C4BC@marcpiel.fr> <000e01d2556e$4759d9c0$d60d8d40$@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <6B25A2FA-2E69-4FBF-9936-AA791FDE3552@bigpond.net.au> Perhaps Larry would be amused at the idea of discussion about how to discuss him. By the way, Anne, I posted the news about Durrell and the AQ featuring on Sydney radio. Cheers David Sent from my iPad > On 14 Dec. 2016, at 5:25 am, Anne Zahlan wrote: > > Thanks to Marc for his happy news--much needed in these dark days. > If the question of to list-serve or not to list-serve is far from settled, there is no question as to why reading Durrell is valuable for us all. > Anne > > -----Original Message----- > From: ILDS [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of MarcPiel > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 6:14 AM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] Lawrence Durrell scores again > > BRAVO! > > Envoy? de mon iPad > > Le 13 d?c. 2016 ? 06:21, Denise Tart & David Green a ?crit : > > On a lighter note to the recent debates, I was driving home from work today when, in the context of travel and writing/ reading, a presenter on national radio here in Sydney kicked off the discussion with her delight in the Alexandria Quartet which she had read as a young student and which led to a rewarding sojourn in Alexandria and Greek Island where the presenter tried to experience these places as if the books were a real experience to be lived - of course they are and Durrell, pronounced DuRELL in Australia, does this so well. > So, very pleased to see old LD getting a plug on the national broadcaster. > > David > > Sent from my iPad > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From zahlan at earthlink.net Tue Dec 13 11:55:14 2016 From: zahlan at earthlink.net (Anne Zahlan) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 14:55:14 -0500 Subject: [ilds] Peter's answers to Questions concerning the Listserve In-Reply-To: <47FDA587-868F-4092-A33F-F85D08D40B39@earthlink.net> References: <47FDA587-868F-4092-A33F-F85D08D40B39@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <001601d2557a$d265e570$7731b050$@earthlink.net> Surely the ILDS officers and board members are listed on the website! Last time I checked they were! Grace Austin was elected to the board in Crete; her professional background is not in language or literature. It would be good to have the facts before commenting. -----Original Message----- From: ILDS [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 1:12 PM To: Sumantra Nag Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] Peter's answers to Questions concerning the Listserve Let me clarify my previous error. I agree about James Gifford?s skills as a moderator. I see no need for a change here. More importantly, I think the ExCom needs a lay person or persons among its members. I don?t recall the total composition of that committee. Perhaps that can be provided. It would be useful to have the officers of the Society listed and identified on the ILDS website. Bruce > On Dec 13, 2016, at 9:33 AM, PETER BALDWIN wrote: > > Thanks, Pamela- and nothing I suggest detracts from Jamie's diligence in moderating the exchanges > > Peter > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 13 Dec 2016, at 17:29, Pamela Francis wrote: >> >> Yes, Peter! What a way to cut through all the "stuff" and get to the point! Great, simple, guidelines. I am also interested in the possibility of a non-Board member here (I'm thinking, and I could be wrong, that the division I sense may not be as much "academic" as it is ExCom/Member. I really don't like to think that way, b/c again, I've never seen any indication of it, but in at least two comments recently, I have sensed some sort of wariness towards the Executive Committee. Of course, this means removing James Gifford, who I think we all agree has done a remarkable and very patient job of herding all these Durrellian cats. I hope you folks will continue to discuss some of these guidelines, with the purpose of not shutting down conversation, but to open it up to more participants. >> >> I especially like Peter's comment that personal issues should be dealt with away from the general discussion. >> >> >> Happy holidays to all! pamela >> _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From delospeter at hotmail.com Tue Dec 13 11:55:50 2016 From: delospeter at hotmail.com (PETER BALDWIN) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 19:55:50 +0000 Subject: [ilds] Bruce's reply and suggestion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A couple of points: 1. I think the Exec Board should take shared responsibility for the management of what is currently listserve and this should not fall solely on the shoulders of Jamie or you, Pamela 2. In that case, the responsibility needs to be written into Article VI (A) of the bye-laws 3. Whilst their consent should be sought, is it not implied that those elected to the Exec Board should have their qualifications published via a short-firm cv? For future consideration- 4. The current issue suggests a lack of accountability of the whole Exec Board to the membership. 5. I am not clear from Art V of the bye-laws who elects the society officers. This bye-law is silent on the issue. Peter Sent from my iPhone On 13 Dec 2016, at 19:23, Pamela Francis > wrote: I can't tell you all how relieved I am that we have come to some consensus (not final, I'm sure, but we're getting there) about purpose and organization of the listserve. I think we should ask James Gifford's opinion on all this, since he is our current moderator. I have never had a problem with James, but I was just throwing out ways to make everyone feel a bit more comfortable. That we can discuss later. I know the names of the Executive Committee members were listed in the newest Herald, but admittedly, they were not accompanied by CVs or resumes; here we have another issue entirely, which is that of people's privacy. I am not concerned at all, given that my picture, name, bio, etc. is all over the internet, but we have some members who are understandably reticent to reveal much personal history. I will drop a line to the Board, though, to see what we can come up with that will "introduce" everyone there to everyone on the listserve. Off to give my Shakespeare final--wishing you all the best--pamela _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zahlan at earthlink.net Tue Dec 13 11:57:40 2016 From: zahlan at earthlink.net (Anne Zahlan) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 14:57:40 -0500 Subject: [ilds] Lawrence Durrell scores again In-Reply-To: <6B25A2FA-2E69-4FBF-9936-AA791FDE3552@bigpond.net.au> References: <34D0A9AB-DD0F-4A77-B084-55DFB771C4BC@marcpiel.fr> <000e01d2556e$4759d9c0$d60d8d40$@earthlink.net> <6B25A2FA-2E69-4FBF-9936-AA791FDE3552@bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <001701d2557b$29269b20$7b73d160$@earthlink.net> Sorry, David, to get it wrong and thanks to you for posting the Sydney message. Best wishes, Anne -----Original Message----- From: ILDS [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Denise Tart & David Green Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 2:36 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] Lawrence Durrell scores again Perhaps Larry would be amused at the idea of discussion about how to discuss him. By the way, Anne, I posted the news about Durrell and the AQ featuring on Sydney radio. Cheers David Sent from my iPad > On 14 Dec. 2016, at 5:25 am, Anne Zahlan wrote: > > Thanks to Marc for his happy news--much needed in these dark days. > If the question of to list-serve or not to list-serve is far from settled, there is no question as to why reading Durrell is valuable for us all. > Anne > > -----Original Message----- > From: ILDS [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of MarcPiel > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 6:14 AM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] Lawrence Durrell scores again > > BRAVO! > > Envoy? de mon iPad > > Le 13 d?c. 2016 ? 06:21, Denise Tart & David Green a ?crit : > > On a lighter note to the recent debates, I was driving home from work today when, in the context of travel and writing/ reading, a presenter on national radio here in Sydney kicked off the discussion with her delight in the Alexandria Quartet which she had read as a young student and which led to a rewarding sojourn in Alexandria and Greek Island where the presenter tried to experience these places as if the books were a real experience to be lived - of course they are and Durrell, pronounced DuRELL in Australia, does this so well. > So, very pleased to see old LD getting a plug on the national broadcaster. > > David > > Sent from my iPad > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Tue Dec 13 12:04:29 2016 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 12:04:29 -0800 Subject: [ilds] Peter's answers to Questions concerning the Listserve In-Reply-To: <001601d2557a$d265e570$7731b050$@earthlink.net> References: <47FDA587-868F-4092-A33F-F85D08D40B39@earthlink.net> <001601d2557a$d265e570$7731b050$@earthlink.net> Message-ID: I checked the website before commenting and didn?t see the ExCom listed in a conspicuous place, such as on a masthead. Thanks. My mistake. Bruce > On Dec 13, 2016, at 11:55 AM, Anne Zahlan wrote: > > Surely the ILDS officers and board members are listed on the website! Last time I checked they were! Grace Austin was elected to the board in Crete; her professional background is not in language or literature. It would be good to have the facts before commenting. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ILDS [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 1:12 PM > To: Sumantra Nag > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] Peter's answers to Questions concerning the Listserve > > Let me clarify my previous error. I agree about James Gifford?s skills as a moderator. I see no need for a change here. More importantly, I think the ExCom needs a lay person or persons among its members. I don?t recall the total composition of that committee. Perhaps that can be provided. It would be useful to have the officers of the Society listed and identified on the ILDS website. > > Bruce > > > > >> On Dec 13, 2016, at 9:33 AM, PETER BALDWIN wrote: >> >> Thanks, Pamela- and nothing I suggest detracts from Jamie's diligence in moderating the exchanges >> >> Peter >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 13 Dec 2016, at 17:29, Pamela Francis wrote: >>> >>> Yes, Peter! What a way to cut through all the "stuff" and get to the point! Great, simple, guidelines. I am also interested in the possibility of a non-Board member here (I'm thinking, and I could be wrong, that the division I sense may not be as much "academic" as it is ExCom/Member. I really don't like to think that way, b/c again, I've never seen any indication of it, but in at least two comments recently, I have sensed some sort of wariness towards the Executive Committee. Of course, this means removing James Gifford, who I think we all agree has done a remarkable and very patient job of herding all these Durrellian cats. I hope you folks will continue to discuss some of these guidelines, with the purpose of not shutting down conversation, but to open it up to more participants. >>> >>> I especially like Peter's comment that personal issues should be dealt with away from the general discussion. >>> >>> >>> Happy holidays to all! pamela >>> > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Tue Dec 13 12:14:12 2016 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 12:14:12 -0800 Subject: [ilds] Bruce's reply and suggestion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3B4E8DB2-C649-4410-A777-8687019B7D78@earthlink.net> I believe Peter Baldwin is a lawyer. He makes good points. I would emphasize nos. 4 and 5 for further discussion. Anne Zahlan has already answered no. 3. Bruce > On Dec 13, 2016, at 11:55 AM, PETER BALDWIN wrote: > > A couple of points: > > 1. I think the Exec Board should take shared responsibility for the management of what is currently listserve and this should not fall solely on the shoulders of Jamie or you, Pamela > > 2. In that case, the responsibility needs to be written into Article VI (A) of the bye-laws > > 3. Whilst their consent should be sought, is it not implied that those elected to the Exec Board should have their qualifications published via a short-firm cv? > > For future consideration- > > 4. The current issue suggests a lack of accountability of the whole Exec Board to the membership. > > 5. I am not clear from Art V of the bye-laws who elects the society officers. This bye-law is silent on the issue. > > Peter > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 13 Dec 2016, at 19:23, Pamela Francis > wrote: > >> I can't tell you all how relieved I am that we have come to some consensus (not final, I'm sure, but we're getting there) about purpose and organization of the listserve. I think we should ask James Gifford's opinion on all this, since he is our current moderator. I have never had a problem with James, but I was just throwing out ways to make everyone feel a bit more comfortable. That we can discuss later. >> I know the names of the Executive Committee members were listed in the newest Herald, but admittedly, they were not accompanied by CVs or resumes; here we have another issue entirely, which is that of people's privacy. I am not concerned at all, given that my picture, name, bio, etc. is all over the internet, but we have some members who are understandably reticent to reveal much personal history. I will drop a line to the Board, though, to see what we can come up with that will "introduce" everyone there to everyone on the listserve. >> Off to give my Shakespeare final--wishing you all the best--pamela >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zahlan at earthlink.net Tue Dec 13 12:15:50 2016 From: zahlan at earthlink.net (Anne Zahlan) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 15:15:50 -0500 Subject: [ilds] General Questions Concerning the Listserve In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <001901d2557d$b2d0d870$18728950$@earthlink.net> Peter has good points to make and, as he points out, the standing to make them! I would say too that contributors should show respect not only for each other but also for those Durrellians who choose not to contribute to this forum and who express their interest in LD and their support for Durrell studies and the Society in other ways. Participation in the list discussion is, after all, a pastime and some of us have family, community, and professional obligations that take precedence in our lives. The choice to post or not to post is surely a matter of individual freedom. Peter's emphasis on civility of discourse is a key to the wisdom and even possibility of maintaining an on-line discussion. In my view, ILDS should not be in the business of sponsoring and facilitating incivility and personal attack. From: ILDS [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of PETER BALDWIN Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 2:40 AM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] General Questions Concerning the Listserve Here goes at some listserve rules: 1 . Purpose - to share information and views about LD 2. At all times contributors must be respectful to each other* 3. Contributions be limited to c200 words on the 'more is less' rule *ie say nothing which you would not say face to face (in a Paris cafe!) to another contributor. ( contributors can take up issues with each other privately off list serve) Additional comments: (A) - ILDS is bound to SEEM academically biased since academia is the only cultural vehicle for the exchanges we seek, i.e., for the most part, the essay. Academic gatherings are also the most convenient way for the committee to meet. (B) - appointment of a non-academic contributor as moderator might help Voila - tous mes pensees sur ce subjet. Peter( non-academic and longest- standing, I think, contributor to Herald) Sent from my iPhone On 13 Dec 2016, at 06:02, Rony Alfandary > wrote: good morning all, I have been a member of ILDS since 2011 and have greatly benefited from being part of discussions here and face-to-face during the London conference. i would hate to see this forum close. i am fairly well versed in the various forms of internet groups and am am also a member of the FB group. i don't think it matters where we talk to one another. If anyone has difficulty upgrading the platform, ILDS should think of a way of assisting them to get acquainted with the new platform. no big deal. Pamela, you asked a direct question concerning what we want of ILDS and I venture a direct answer, even though it addresses my own specific need (wish) of ILDS. as you may know, I have written and published a study of the Quartet in Hebrew which has come out in Israel last week. I would wish ILDS to support such a venture by, for instance, buying a bulk quantity of books and distributing them and also to sponsor an English translation of the work, so it can be enjoyed by people who cannot read Hebrew. I wonder if there are other writers here who could envision ILDS supporting their writing about Durrell. am I wrong in suggesting that that could be one of ILDS goals? carrying on Durrell's work? so, excuse my CHUTZPA. i hope it has not gone over into HUBRIS.... best, Rony Rony Alfandary, Ph.D. Clinical Social Worker, Psychoanalytic Psychotherapist Postgraduate Program of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy Dept. of Social Work Bar-Ilan University Ramat-Gan 51905 On 12 December 2016 at 23:16, Pamela Francis > wrote: Okay, Ken (and thanks for your comments) and others, I'll ask, then: What IS it you want the listserve to do? Isn't one of the complaints that there isn't enough discussion? How do you promote discussion among people who feel completely shut out of the process? To what do you attribute this lull, and what are suggestions for jumpstarting discussion? Don't most listserves/discussion boards, etc. have parameters and purposes? What is so horrible about UPGRADING a venue? (Should we all hold on to our dot matrix printers too?) Finally, what do the regular participants here perceive to be the duties of Society? What exactly do we do (or don't do) that is so offensive? What other societies are you involved with and how are they significantly different? This is the only author-society I am involved in, so I genuinely don't know--I know some of my colleagues are in other societies and have not noted any significant differences. So this is not a flippant or angry question, but a genuine one. I'll note that in my time in the Society, and at the OMGs I've attended, few, if any of these types of concerns have been broached in the meetings. So I am rather curious. And just one clarification: I apologize if it appears I'm attacking Bruce, per se, but ad hominim attacks, whether against the moderator, the current Society President, or Facebook users (which includes the Society, which I do not feel is "pandering" but is rather utilizing another venue to attract those interested in Durrell--an objective which I believe it has done without somehow lessening the current state of Durrell studies. Neither I nor anyone else demanded that you all go get a Facebook page--I just offered those as options or additions to other forms of communication. I don't think reminding people that we have FB and Twitter is any attempt to dumb down Durrell.) The comments aimed at James Clawson I find more serious, and yes, I resent the implication that the ILDS Board, is some sort of oligarchy, when, as far as I can tell, no one has clearly stated what it is they want from the Society or the Board. If I have come across as angry, I do apologize; I will admit that my hackles rise when people whom I know to have the best interests of the ILDS at heart are accused of somehow making some sort of power play--to what end, I have no idea. This has taken way too much of my time, which again, I will note is the main reason there isn't a lot of contribution from some members, certainly more so than that we don't want to "share" our ideas (if you attend OMGs, you know that there is plenty of sharing of ideas, especially in cafes with a big bottle of plonk on the table!). I am genuinely interested in the answers to the questions I've asked above, and will check back to see what people do have to say about these very real issues, but due to time constraints and my desire to avoid the risk of more conflict, I will (or at least will attempt to) refrain from comment. Best to all---pamela _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zahlan at earthlink.net Tue Dec 13 12:17:55 2016 From: zahlan at earthlink.net (Anne Zahlan) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 15:17:55 -0500 Subject: [ilds] Peter's answers to Questions concerning the Listserve In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001e01d2557d$fd4360d0$f7ca2270$@earthlink.net> The list is hosted by a university. -----Original Message----- From: ILDS [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of PETER BALDWIN Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 12:33 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] Peter's answers to Questions concerning the Listserve Thanks, Pamela- and nothing I suggest detracts from Jamie's diligence in moderating the exchanges Peter Sent from my iPhone > On 13 Dec 2016, at 17:29, Pamela Francis wrote: > > Yes, Peter! What a way to cut through all the "stuff" and get to the point! Great, simple, guidelines. I am also interested in the possibility of a non-Board member here (I'm thinking, and I could be wrong, that the division I sense may not be as much "academic" as it is ExCom/Member. I really don't like to think that way, b/c again, I've never seen any indication of it, but in at least two comments recently, I have sensed some sort of wariness towards the Executive Committee. Of course, this means removing James Gifford, who I think we all agree has done a remarkable and very patient job of herding all these Durrellian cats. I hope you folks will continue to discuss some of these guidelines, with the purpose of not shutting down conversation, but to open it up to more participants. > > I especially like Peter's comment that personal issues should be dealt with away from the general discussion. > > > Happy holidays to all! pamela > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From zahlan at earthlink.net Tue Dec 13 12:46:08 2016 From: zahlan at earthlink.net (Anne Zahlan) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 15:46:08 -0500 Subject: [ilds] Bruce's reply and suggestion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002c01d25581$ee495090$cadbf1b0$@earthlink.net> Biographies of those nominated for posts on the executive board were distributed to members at the meeting in Crete (before the vote was taken). Permission to circulate the information at the meeting was granted, but posting on the internet would require additional permission. Perhaps a hard copy of the officers/board members CVs could be sent to the members, either across the board or on request. A From: ILDS [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of PETER BALDWIN Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 2:56 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] Bruce's reply and suggestion A couple of points: 1. I think the Exec Board should take shared responsibility for the management of what is currently listserve and this should not fall solely on the shoulders of Jamie or you, Pamela 2. In that case, the responsibility needs to be written into Article VI (A) of the bye-laws 3. Whilst their consent should be sought, is it not implied that those elected to the Exec Board should have their qualifications published via a short-firm cv? For future consideration- 4. The current issue suggests a lack of accountability of the whole Exec Board to the membership. 5. I am not clear from Art V of the bye-laws who elects the society officers. This bye-law is silent on the issue. Peter Sent from my iPhone On 13 Dec 2016, at 19:23, Pamela Francis > wrote: I can't tell you all how relieved I am that we have come to some consensus (not final, I'm sure, but we're getting there) about purpose and organization of the listserve. I think we should ask James Gifford's opinion on all this, since he is our current moderator. I have never had a problem with James, but I was just throwing out ways to make everyone feel a bit more comfortable. That we can discuss later. I know the names of the Executive Committee members were listed in the newest Herald, but admittedly, they were not accompanied by CVs or resumes; here we have another issue entirely, which is that of people's privacy. I am not concerned at all, given that my picture, name, bio, etc. is all over the internet, but we have some members who are understandably reticent to reveal much personal history. I will drop a line to the Board, though, to see what we can come up with that will "introduce" everyone there to everyone on the listserve. Off to give my Shakespeare final--wishing you all the best--pamela _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zahlan at earthlink.net Tue Dec 13 12:53:40 2016 From: zahlan at earthlink.net (Anne Zahlan) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 15:53:40 -0500 Subject: [ilds] Peter's answers to Questions concerning the Listserve In-Reply-To: References: <47FDA587-868F-4092-A33F-F85D08D40B39@earthlink.net> <001601d2557a$d265e570$7731b050$@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <003101d25582$fc2db8d0$f4892a70$@earthlink.net> Under "About" at the top left of the website masthead there are three topics listed" "By-Laws of the Society," "Officers" and "Membership." Click on "Officers" (Although there some updates and corrections still needed, the current officers are listed there.) Perhaps a different designation would help? The officers and board members are also listed in the directory which goes out to all members about every two years. There is no cabal, I promise. -----Original Message----- From: ILDS [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 3:04 PM To: Sumantra Nag Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] Peter's answers to Questions concerning the Listserve I checked the website before commenting and didn?t see the ExCom listed in a conspicuous place, such as on a masthead. Thanks. My mistake. Bruce From zahlan at earthlink.net Tue Dec 13 13:37:15 2016 From: zahlan at earthlink.net (Anne Zahlan) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 16:37:15 -0500 Subject: [ilds] Bruce's reply and suggestion In-Reply-To: <3B4E8DB2-C649-4410-A777-8687019B7D78@earthlink.net> References: <3B4E8DB2-C649-4410-A777-8687019B7D78@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <000001d25589$126539b0$372fad10$@earthlink.net> Officers and board members are elected by the ILDS membership at the society meetings held every two years. There is a procedure stipulated for "Amendment of the By-Laws" in Article X. Perhaps some amendments would clarify procedures for everyone and allay fears as to the legitimacy of the board. From: ILDS [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 3:14 PM To: Sumantra Nag Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] Bruce's reply and suggestion I believe Peter Baldwin is a lawyer. He makes good points. I would emphasize nos. 4 and 5 for further discussion. Anne Zahlan has already answered no. 3. Bruce On Dec 13, 2016, at 11:55 AM, PETER BALDWIN > wrote: A couple of points: 1. I think the Exec Board should take shared responsibility for the management of what is currently listserve and this should not fall solely on the shoulders of Jamie or you, Pamela 2. In that case, the responsibility needs to be written into Article VI (A) of the bye-laws 3. Whilst their consent should be sought, is it not implied that those elected to the Exec Board should have their qualifications published via a short-firm cv? For future consideration- 4. The current issue suggests a lack of accountability of the whole Exec Board to the membership. 5. I am not clear from Art V of the bye-laws who elects the society officers. This bye-law is silent on the issue. Peter Sent from my iPhone On 13 Dec 2016, at 19:23, Pamela Francis > wrote: I can't tell you all how relieved I am that we have come to some consensus (not final, I'm sure, but we're getting there) about purpose and organization of the listserve. I think we should ask James Gifford's opinion on all this, since he is our current moderator. I have never had a problem with James, but I was just throwing out ways to make everyone feel a bit more comfortable. That we can discuss later. I know the names of the Executive Committee members were listed in the newest Herald, but admittedly, they were not accompanied by CVs or resumes; here we have another issue entirely, which is that of people's privacy. I am not concerned at all, given that my picture, name, bio, etc. is all over the internet, but we have some members who are understandably reticent to reveal much personal history. I will drop a line to the Board, though, to see what we can come up with that will "introduce" everyone there to everyone on the listserve. Off to give my Shakespeare final--wishing you all the best--pamela -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Tue Dec 13 14:32:32 2016 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 14:32:32 -0800 Subject: [ilds] =?utf-8?q?Point_of_information=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: <47FDA587-868F-4092-A33F-F85D08D40B39@earthlink.net> References: <47FDA587-868F-4092-A33F-F85D08D40B39@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <7075de5e-1323-04de-f584-4aed35fe8c33@gmail.com> Dear all, Rather than inserting my voice into the (happy!) discussion about what we all collectively want from our various communicative venues, I'll give some points of technological information that respond to recent messages. The details can be opaque, so if this is old ground for some of you, please forgive or skip: (1) SOCIAL MEDIA -- the listserv really is a form of social media, like Facebook & Twitter (or Reddit...), just oh so very much older. Most social media are operationally akin to the old online bulletin board technology, except that they send out information in different ways and put different restrictions on message content. Email is the interface for us, although (for example) I could do my blog posts by sending them via email if I really wanted to... Most of the web traffic *from links* to the ILDS website comes via Twitter, distantly followed by FB and Wikipedia. For academic sites I manage, most traffic comes from FB, which is fairly standard these days. I don't FB but I do tweet, mainly because the concision helps with academic time limits, and the direct messages feature gives unlimited message length in a private forum for select conversations (I have many highly focused/specialized scholarly interaction this way). A key difference is how various forms of social media combine synchronous and asynchronous communication. The listserv is asynchronous. (2) MODERATION -- the listerv was originally hosted & moderated by Anna Lillios. A decade ago we moved it to Victoria to be co-moderated by Charles Sligh, Bill Godshalk, and I. I've tended to do the grunt work, but I consult with the ILDS Executive for anything particularly thorny. Co-moderators are easy to add, but it ain't glamorous... It's mostly just mundane. Having different time zones covered can be an advantage. (3) ANTIQUE TECH -- the GNU listserv technology is a 1998 recreation of 1980s coding. To keep that in context, it was designed for folks reading email in Elm, Alpine, Pegasus, and so forth. For context, it originally predates Outlook... It works, but it's not resource rich, and it will strip messages to plain text in the archive or digest format, etc. I'd think of it like radio, which is technologically obsolete yet persistent because it's ubiquitous. You can look to the awful 1985 /Ender's Game/ for a sense of just how long these discussion boards and listservs have been around. Really, this is dial-up internet technology... That's what it's built for. If you're reading this on your iPhone, think about that. (4) LISTSERVIA -- "flames" are a common trouble to listservs, hence moderating and codes of conduct. Virtually all listservs are moderated (we must be since the messages are stored on a university server). Many literary or academic listservs have fallen away in favour of FB and such, but others persist as well, typically as general communication of information, but with active discussions largely moving to other social media that permit synchronous AND asynchronous interaction. It's the drift of the times... The general trends is toward listservs for direct communication "out" to a group (saves the BCC trouble) with discussion in other venues. However, the MSA, for example, keeps two lists for those distinct purposes. Their "discussion" list, however, is much larger than ours yet has far less activity (mainly CFP postings). (5) CONDUCT -- codes of conduct are ubiquitous for listservs and social media. "Trolling" is equally ubiquitous. For example, when there's a tragedy or coup somewhere in the world, you'll find folks on FB or Twitter posting videos of it that are fake or of other past events... Sometimes this is a clever way of shaping public opinion in the "fake news" format, but most of the time it's just "trolling." The standard advice is "don't feed the trolls": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll (6) TONE -- all of that said, antique technology doesn't permit the "soft edges" of today's social media that lessen micro-aggressions. Tone is hard in plain text, so emoticons often clarify tone in FB or Twitter, etc. We don't get those ( ?\_(?)_/? ), so some rudeness is because of the missing contextual elements we'd tolerate just fine in our Parisian caf?, even if the interlocutors are animated... FWIW, the standard way of dealing with "flame wars" from misconduct is to impose a cooling off period and reiterating the rules, which is what we did -- I've been on lists doing that periodically since the early 90s (logging in via UNIX in the basement campus computer labs, probably with hair gel and a walkman cassette player in hand). Our list has been *far* more tolerant of conflict than most out there, and I suspect too tolerant to fulfill its function as it should. I accept that as my failing to moderate effectively. (6) ILDS & the Listserv -- in a technical sense, these are two different things. You don't need to be a member of the ILDS to be on the listserv and vice versa (many ILDS members are not on the listserv). The listserv is managed through the University of Victoria, which provides server space as a kindness -- it agreed to do so while I was on a postdoc there as an Assistant Professor, and they keep it up out of good will. It's the "ILDS Listserv" but not quite exactly in the "ILDS's Listserv" way, which is a good reason for us all to play nice and get along with each other. I should also stress, it's certainly not "mine" personally, and I hope I've never given that impression. I'll jump in on some other points soon, but more concisely... All best, James From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Tue Dec 13 14:43:20 2016 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 14:43:20 -0800 Subject: [ilds] Bruce's reply and suggestion In-Reply-To: <000001d25589$126539b0$372fad10$@earthlink.net> References: <3B4E8DB2-C649-4410-A777-8687019B7D78@earthlink.net> <000001d25589$126539b0$372fad10$@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <0008193D-A160-4B44-9C36-CCBD30157808@earthlink.net> Peter Baldwin uses the word "accountability." I take that to mean the Board's responsiveness to the general membership on important matters such as terminating the listserv. I'm not questioning the Board's "legitimacy," although I think the election process should be opened to more people than those attending a biennial meeting. Perhaps some online voting, as, I believe, is done at the MLA? Bruce Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 13, 2016, at 1:37 PM, Anne Zahlan wrote: > > Officers and board members are elected by the ILDS membership at the society meetings held every two years. There is a procedure stipulated for ?Amendment of the By-Laws? in Article X. Perhaps some amendments would clarify procedures for everyone and allay fears as to the legitimacy of the board. > > From: ILDS [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 3:14 PM > To: Sumantra Nag > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] Bruce's reply and suggestion > > I believe Peter Baldwin is a lawyer. He makes good points. I would emphasize nos. 4 and 5 for further discussion. Anne Zahlan has already answered no. 3. > > Bruce > > > > On Dec 13, 2016, at 11:55 AM, PETER BALDWIN wrote: > > A couple of points: > > 1. I think the Exec Board should take shared responsibility for the management of what is currently listserve and this should not fall solely on the shoulders of Jamie or you, Pamela > > 2. In that case, the responsibility needs to be written into Article VI (A) of the bye-laws > > 3. Whilst their consent should be sought, is it not implied that those elected to the Exec Board should have their qualifications published via a short-firm cv? > > For future consideration- > > 4. The current issue suggests a lack of accountability of the whole Exec Board to the membership. > > 5. I am not clear from Art V of the bye-laws who elects the society officers. This bye-law is silent on the issue. > > Peter > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 13 Dec 2016, at 19:23, Pamela Francis wrote: > > I can't tell you all how relieved I am that we have come to some consensus (not final, I'm sure, but we're getting there) about purpose and organization of the listserve. I think we should ask James Gifford's opinion on all this, since he is our current moderator. I have never had a problem with James, but I was just throwing out ways to make everyone feel a bit more comfortable. That we can discuss later. > I know the names of the Executive Committee members were listed in the newest Herald, but admittedly, they were not accompanied by CVs or resumes; here we have another issue entirely, which is that of people's privacy. I am not concerned at all, given that my picture, name, bio, etc. is all over the internet, but we have some members who are understandably reticent to reveal much personal history. I will drop a line to the Board, though, to see what we can come up with that will "introduce" everyone there to everyone on the listserve. > Off to give my Shakespeare final--wishing you all the best--pamela > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From delospeter at hotmail.com Wed Dec 14 00:35:43 2016 From: delospeter at hotmail.com (PETER BALDWIN) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 08:35:43 +0000 Subject: [ilds] =?utf-8?q?Point_of_information=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: <7075de5e-1323-04de-f584-4aed35fe8c33@gmail.com> References: <47FDA587-868F-4092-A33F-F85D08D40B39@earthlink.net>, <7075de5e-1323-04de-f584-4aed35fe8c33@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks, James, and I had no idea of the complexity of the technology. I do think canvassing listserve users for the preferred medium should be considered if there is to be a change of platform. Given that some will be adverse to any change because they are uncomfortable with modern social media, it may be necessary to have a 2/3 vote in favour of any change - unlike our UK Brexit debate where the 49% 'remainders' are demanding a voice. Best regards Peter Sent from my iPhone > On 13 Dec 2016, at 22:33, James Gifford wrote: > > Dear all, > > Rather than inserting my voice into the (happy!) discussion about what we all collectively want from our various communicative venues, I'll give some points of technological information that respond to recent messages. The details can be opaque, so if this is old ground for some of you, please forgive or skip: > > (1) SOCIAL MEDIA -- the listserv really is a form of social media, like Facebook & Twitter (or Reddit...), just oh so very much older. Most social media are operationally akin to the old online bulletin board technology, except that they send out information in different ways and put different restrictions on message content. Email is the interface for us, although (for example) I could do my blog posts by sending them via email if I really wanted to... > > Most of the web traffic *from links* to the ILDS website comes via Twitter, distantly followed by FB and Wikipedia. For academic sites I manage, most traffic comes from FB, which is fairly standard these days. I don't FB but I do tweet, mainly because the concision helps with academic time limits, and the direct messages feature gives unlimited message length in a private forum for select conversations (I have many highly focused/specialized scholarly interaction this way). A key difference is how various forms of social media combine synchronous and asynchronous communication. The listserv is asynchronous. > > (2) MODERATION -- the listerv was originally hosted & moderated by Anna Lillios. A decade ago we moved it to Victoria to be co-moderated by Charles Sligh, Bill Godshalk, and I. I've tended to do the grunt work, but I consult with the ILDS Executive for anything particularly thorny. Co-moderators are easy to add, but it ain't glamorous... It's mostly just mundane. Having different time zones covered can be an advantage. > > (3) ANTIQUE TECH -- the GNU listserv technology is a 1998 recreation of 1980s coding. To keep that in context, it was designed for folks reading email in Elm, Alpine, Pegasus, and so forth. For context, it originally predates Outlook... It works, but it's not resource rich, and it will strip messages to plain text in the archive or digest format, etc. I'd think of it like radio, which is technologically obsolete yet persistent because it's ubiquitous. You can look to the awful 1985 /Ender's Game/ for a sense of just how long these discussion boards and listservs have been around. > > Really, this is dial-up internet technology... That's what it's built for. If you're reading this on your iPhone, think about that. > > (4) LISTSERVIA -- "flames" are a common trouble to listservs, hence moderating and codes of conduct. Virtually all listservs are moderated (we must be since the messages are stored on a university server). Many literary or academic listservs have fallen away in favour of FB and such, but others persist as well, typically as general communication of information, but with active discussions largely moving to other social media that permit synchronous AND asynchronous interaction. It's the drift of the times... > > The general trends is toward listservs for direct communication "out" to a group (saves the BCC trouble) with discussion in other venues. However, the MSA, for example, keeps two lists for those distinct purposes. Their "discussion" list, however, is much larger than ours yet has far less activity (mainly CFP postings). > > (5) CONDUCT -- codes of conduct are ubiquitous for listservs and social media. "Trolling" is equally ubiquitous. For example, when there's a tragedy or coup somewhere in the world, you'll find folks on FB or Twitter posting videos of it that are fake or of other past events... Sometimes this is a clever way of shaping public opinion in the "fake news" format, but most of the time it's just "trolling." The standard advice is "don't feed the trolls": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll > > (6) TONE -- all of that said, antique technology doesn't permit the "soft edges" of today's social media that lessen micro-aggressions. Tone is hard in plain text, so emoticons often clarify tone in FB or Twitter, etc. We don't get those ( ?\_(?)_/? ), so some rudeness is because of the missing contextual elements we'd tolerate just fine in our Parisian caf?, even if the interlocutors are animated... > > FWIW, the standard way of dealing with "flame wars" from misconduct is to impose a cooling off period and reiterating the rules, which is what we did -- I've been on lists doing that periodically since the early 90s (logging in via UNIX in the basement campus computer labs, probably with hair gel and a walkman cassette player in hand). Our list has been *far* more tolerant of conflict than most out there, and I suspect too tolerant to fulfill its function as it should. I accept that as my failing to moderate effectively. > > (6) ILDS & the Listserv -- in a technical sense, these are two different things. You don't need to be a member of the ILDS to be on the listserv and vice versa (many ILDS members are not on the listserv). The listserv is managed through the University of Victoria, which provides server space as a kindness -- it agreed to do so while I was on a postdoc there as an Assistant Professor, and they keep it up out of good will. It's the "ILDS Listserv" but not quite exactly in the "ILDS's Listserv" way, which is a good reason for us all to play nice and get along with each other. I should also stress, it's certainly not "mine" personally, and I hope I've never given that impression. > > I'll jump in on some other points soon, but more concisely... > > All best, > James > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From gammage.kennedy at gmail.com Wed Dec 14 11:33:54 2016 From: gammage.kennedy at gmail.com (Kennedy Gammage) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:33:54 -0800 Subject: [ilds] ILDS and DSC Message-ID: I would like to suggest that the ILDS re-link with the Durrell School of Corfu. Let the rest of the details re: the listserv be sorted out later. But I still have not seen a compelling argument to shut down the listserv. It is very democratic, even in a digital Greek way: you press REPLY and people read what you want to say. Durrell related of course - but few replied to the Dylan Nobel Prize thread even after James provided the crucial LGD link: the Squeamish Academy bonged him because of sexuality in the Quartet! - Ken -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Wed Dec 14 11:42:35 2016 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:42:35 -0800 Subject: [ilds] ILDS and DSC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5EC41E2A-8027-4ADE-8B62-19044D3AB7E0@earthlink.net> I completely agree with Ken's proposal. Pamela Francis may want to clarify what she means by "terminating" the listserv platform. Bruce Bruce Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 14, 2016, at 11:33 AM, Kennedy Gammage wrote: > > I would like to suggest that the ILDS re-link with the Durrell School of Corfu. > > Let the rest of the details re: the listserv be sorted out later. But I still have not seen a compelling argument to shut down the listserv. It is very democratic, even in a digital Greek way: you press REPLY and people read what you want to say. Durrell related of course - but few replied to the Dylan Nobel Prize thread even after James provided the crucial LGD link: the Squeamish Academy bonged him because of sexuality in the Quartet! > > - Ken > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From dtart at bigpond.net.au Wed Dec 14 11:53:47 2016 From: dtart at bigpond.net.au (Denise Tart & David Green) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 06:53:47 +1100 Subject: [ilds] ILDS and DSC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <043378A5-E3A7-43C7-90A3-BA8730F7A01A@bigpond.net.au> Ken, they'd probably bong him for other reasons these days. Sexism, racism or being attached to a colonial administration. I note that Mr Dylan is still hiding in his cage, very strange and rather rude I think. Larry would have loved the prize. Fame sells books. Guess BD don't need the money at his time of life. David Sent from my iPad > On 15 Dec. 2016, at 6:33 am, Kennedy Gammage wrote: > > I would like to suggest that the ILDS re-link with the Durrell School of Corfu. > > Let the rest of the details re: the listserv be sorted out later. But I still have not seen a compelling argument to shut down the listserv. It is very democratic, even in a digital Greek way: you press REPLY and people read what you want to say. Durrell related of course - but few replied to the Dylan Nobel Prize thread even after James provided the crucial LGD link: the Squeamish Academy bonged him because of sexuality in the Quartet! > > - Ken > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Wed Dec 14 12:13:28 2016 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 12:13:28 -0800 Subject: [ilds] ILDS and DSC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9dcf83a8-032f-44a9-cf28-9f30e3e2825f@gmail.com> Hi Ken, The DSC ceased to exist a number of years ago, but to be perfectly clear, the ILDS materially and financially supported it in meaningful ways, either through direct charitable supports or by funding its publication projects and through extensive promotion. I'd suggest it's fairer to ask about the opposite direction for reciprocity... I can't recall any despite 10 years involvement with the DSC. But to be candid, I don't regard that line of conversation as leading anywhere, so I'll not be part of it. I disengaged from the DSC many years ago, and as may have been noticed on the list, I don't engage with particular people directly and have not for quite some time. As for the listserv, I'm neutral but have obviously done a lot to support the conversations that happen here. That said, no platform is forever. We've done this for 20 years, and if the snags that led it astray are not longer problematic, it may well tick along for a while yet. However, as a technological reality, I don't see it supported for another 20 years, not because we "shut it down" but rather because it goes the way of Blockbuster video stores or more prosaically because an antique server finally gives up its ghost to the ether... I should probably also add that the ILDS executive has been talking about this for 5 years or maybe even more. Obviously we've not felt it was urgent, but we've all recognized it's there and will eventually press. At the same time, we've not wanted to get into a deep discussion about it until we feel we have something meaningful to propose. Is that helpful? I also don't think James Clawson's comments in the Herald have been presented fairly here -- by which I mean, I think a mischaracterization akin to "shut it down!" (so reminiscent of other chants that may be clouding judgment) has displaced the reality, which I think is more like "obviously there's a problem, so why not consider the other options out there." The fact of this conversation is perhaps a more apt indication of the reality of how the ILDS tries its best to serve the interests of its members and its mandate as a society. All best, James On 2016-12-14 11:33 AM, Kennedy Gammage wrote: > I would like to suggest that the ILDS re-link with the Durrell School of > Corfu. > > Let the rest of the details re: the listserv be sorted out later. But I > still have not seen a compelling argument to shut down the listserv. It > is very democratic, even in a digital Greek way: you press REPLY and > people read what you want to say. Durrell related of course - but few > replied to the Dylan Nobel Prize thread even after James provided the > crucial LGD link: the Squeamish Academy bonged him because of sexuality > in the Quartet! > > - Ken > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Wed Dec 14 12:15:55 2016 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 12:15:55 -0800 Subject: [ilds] ILDS and DSC In-Reply-To: <043378A5-E3A7-43C7-90A3-BA8730F7A01A@bigpond.net.au> References: <043378A5-E3A7-43C7-90A3-BA8730F7A01A@bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: Hi David & Ken, I'll go on record saying I do think Dylan's a poet but his acceptance speech was silly. Then again, I don't tend to have high expectations of poets in their elder year, nor for their public pronouncements for that matter... James Clawson has done some very promising topic modelling on the Nobel Prize, which I'm looking forward to learning more about. I think he's presenting some of that research at the Louisville conference. Best, James On 2016-12-14 11:53 AM, Denise Tart & David Green wrote: > Ken, they'd probably bong him for other reasons these days. Sexism, racism or being attached to a colonial administration. I note that Mr Dylan is still hiding in his cage, very strange and rather rude I think. Larry would have loved the prize. Fame sells books. Guess BD don't need the money at his time of life. > > David > > Sent from my iPad > >> On 15 Dec. 2016, at 6:33 am, Kennedy Gammage wrote: >> >> I would like to suggest that the ILDS re-link with the Durrell School of Corfu. >> >> Let the rest of the details re: the listserv be sorted out later. But I still have not seen a compelling argument to shut down the listserv. It is very democratic, even in a digital Greek way: you press REPLY and people read what you want to say. Durrell related of course - but few replied to the Dylan Nobel Prize thread even after James provided the crucial LGD link: the Squeamish Academy bonged him because of sexuality in the Quartet! >> >> - Ken >> _______________________________________________ >> ILDS mailing list >> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca >> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > From pamelajofrancis at gmail.com Wed Dec 14 12:52:40 2016 From: pamelajofrancis at gmail.com (Pamela Francis) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 14:52:40 -0600 Subject: [ilds] clarification of "termination" Message-ID: As I noted in my reply to your personal email, Bruce, and as I thought I had clarified here, termination only refers to this platform. There is no threat of shutting down discussion on Durrell, and I'm not sure how much clearer that point can be made. I'm getting quite frustrated here, as a simple note that we are using outdated technology that we will have to leave at some point, has been taken way out of context. I have never said I wanted to terminate discussion on LD. I've already apologized for my originally sharp reply (prompted mainly by what I think is a very unfair and inaccurate portrayal of James Clawson's motives for desiring this same move), and for my perhaps defensive comment that I find the tone on the discussion board to be neither encouraging of discussion nor welcoming to some, but I am truly confused at what more is demanded of me here. I thought I made it clear in my personal reply to your personal email, and it seems to me that James Gifford explained the technical aspects in great detail, but if it's necessary I will add: The ExCom, in its promotion of the study and discussion of the writer Lawrence Durrell, hopes to migrate to a more user-friendly and resource-rich platform for discussion on Lawrence Durrell. When that happens, the present platform will ride off pleasantly into the sunset. I hope that is gentle enough for all, and I hope it clarifies that at no point is the ILDS, either its larger membership or the Executive Committee, desirous of terminating meaningful discussion on the writer, Lawrence Durrell. I truly don't believe that I ever implied that there will be no future discussion board of some sort dedicated to Durrell, only a different "place" to do so. I apologize if it was read that way, but I really think it's been clarified by both the moderator of this list-serve and myself. Sincerely, Pamela -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Wed Dec 14 13:32:45 2016 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 13:32:45 -0800 Subject: [ilds] "Shutdown" of the ILDS Listserv In-Reply-To: <9dcf83a8-032f-44a9-cf28-9f30e3e2825f@gmail.com> References: <9dcf83a8-032f-44a9-cf28-9f30e3e2825f@gmail.com> Message-ID: <70CF8FF6-CAF8-414A-9544-54D70FD2A75C@earthlink.net> > I also don't think James Clawson's comments in the Herald have been presented fairly here -- by which I mean, I think a mischaracterization akin to "shut it down!" (so reminiscent of other chants that may be clouding judgment) has displaced the reality, which I think is more like "obviously there's a problem, so why not consider the other options out there." The fact of this conversation is perhaps a more apt indication of the reality of how the ILDS tries its best to serve the interests of its members and its mandate as a society. Had James Gifford?s wording been used??obviously there?s a problem, so why not consider the other options out there??I doubt there would now be a ruckus over the ?shutdown? of the ILDS listserv, which Pamela Francis says was never contemplated. I found the language and explanation confusing. Perhaps I missed something discussed over the last five-plus years, but I don?t recall that there was ever ?obviously? a ?problem? with that platform?s program. Publishing the minutes of Board meetings would forestall such confusion, assuming that's where the problem was discussed. Bruce > On Dec 14, 2016, at 12:13 PM, James Gifford wrote: > > Hi Ken, > > The DSC ceased to exist a number of years ago, but to be perfectly clear, the ILDS materially and financially supported it in meaningful ways, either through direct charitable supports or by funding its publication projects and through extensive promotion. I'd suggest it's fairer to ask about the opposite direction for reciprocity... I can't recall any despite 10 years involvement with the DSC. > > But to be candid, I don't regard that line of conversation as leading anywhere, so I'll not be part of it. I disengaged from the DSC many years ago, and as may have been noticed on the list, I don't engage with particular people directly and have not for quite some time. > > As for the listserv, I'm neutral but have obviously done a lot to support the conversations that happen here. That said, no platform is forever. We've done this for 20 years, and if the snags that led it astray are not longer problematic, it may well tick along for a while yet. However, as a technological reality, I don't see it supported for another 20 years, not because we "shut it down" but rather because it goes the way of Blockbuster video stores or more prosaically because an antique server finally gives up its ghost to the ether... > > I should probably also add that the ILDS executive has been talking about this for 5 years or maybe even more. Obviously we've not felt it was urgent, but we've all recognized it's there and will eventually press. At the same time, we've not wanted to get into a deep discussion about it until we feel we have something meaningful to propose. > > Is that helpful? I also don't think James Clawson's comments in the Herald have been presented fairly here -- by which I mean, I think a mischaracterization akin to "shut it down!" (so reminiscent of other chants that may be clouding judgment) has displaced the reality, which I think is more like "obviously there's a problem, so why not consider the other options out there." The fact of this conversation is perhaps a more apt indication of the reality of how the ILDS tries its best to serve the interests of its members and its mandate as a society. > > All best, > James > From gammage.kennedy at gmail.com Wed Dec 14 13:56:40 2016 From: gammage.kennedy at gmail.com (Kennedy Gammage) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 13:56:40 -0800 Subject: [ilds] Normajean are you on the list? Message-ID: You wrote an excellent very personal yet scholarly article about Michael and Daphne Fraenkel in NEXUS 11 The International Henry Miller Journal. I went looking for more info about Fraenkel and found this: http://cosmotc.blogspot.com/2006/02/michael-fraenkel-biographical-timeline.html All the best - Ken -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Wed Dec 14 14:04:04 2016 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 14:04:04 -0800 Subject: [ilds] =?utf-8?q?Art_et_Libert=C3=A9?= Message-ID: <9deaf79e-9c2c-3295-1a33-75bd38fbc5a5@gmail.com> Dear all, The exhibition "Art et Libert?: Rupture, War and Surrealism in Egypt (1938?1948)" is currently running at Centre Pompidou in Paris but will continue on to Madrid, D?sseldorf, and Liverpool. Durrell is discussed in the exhibition catalogue, and the exhibition contains several works by Amy Smart (n?e Nimr) who translated and wrote on Rilke for /Personal Landscape/: http://www.artreoriented.com/ If you find yourself in one of those cities, I think you'd enjoy the exhibition and find it richly rewarding as an example of the kind of artistic and intellectual milieu in which Durrell moved while in Cairo and Alexandria. The exhibition catalogue is beautifully done (and available as a book in English, French, German, Spanish, and Arabic) and connects to Sam Bardaouil's recent book /Surrealism in Egypt: Modernism and the Art and Liberty Group/: http://tinyurl.com/z4f58h4 The latter book is released in Europe but not in North American until next month, I believe. All best, James From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Wed Dec 14 14:29:00 2016 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 14:29:00 -0800 Subject: [ilds] "Shutdown" of the ILDS Listserv In-Reply-To: <70CF8FF6-CAF8-414A-9544-54D70FD2A75C@earthlink.net> References: <9dcf83a8-032f-44a9-cf28-9f30e3e2825f@gmail.com> <70CF8FF6-CAF8-414A-9544-54D70FD2A75C@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <600a16a9-b381-4d61-2a04-4afdf9fba599@gmail.com> Hi all, On 2016-12-14 1:32 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > Had James Gifford?s wording been used ... I doubt > there would now be a ruckus There's always a ruckus for one reason or another, so I don't doubt we'd have one... But it's all clear now, right? So we can set aside the ruckus for a much happier rumpus, but not a krampus despite the timing? I hope so. > Publishing the > minutes of Board meetings would forestall such confusion I'd actually have to check where the minutes are distributed (anyone???), but they do go out. The meaningful information is more in the way of determining the nominations committee, confirming conference venues, the budget, and so forth. But to avoid ongoing confusion, I think the troubles of the listserv are fairly simple when listed: 1) conduct & resulting (often off-list) conflict 2) the widespread abandonment of the platform as it ages & other options rise 3) the contingency of hosting & administrating the list I don't think we need to air #1 any further apart from the ongoing encouragement that we aim for productive and mutually beneficial interactions in whatever communities we engage with others. Likewise, I think I set out the plain issues of #2 yesterday -- just as Twitter shut down Vine and Microsoft or whoever will eventually close down MySpace, or how Netflix crushed the ubiquity of Blockbuster, this aging technology won't go on forever. #3 is more prosaic. We rely on a host institution and my personal ongoing research connections with it for the listserv. No one wants to do volunteer work for which they are perpetually attacked and disparaged, and no one controls when a hosting institution simply decides not to replace an aging server. Those contingencies mean that while it may not be urgent today, we should (at least in the Executive Board) continue to be mindful of the fact that at some point it will. And problems with #1 will certainly exacerbate the sense of urgency around #3. All best, James From gammage.kennedy at gmail.com Wed Dec 14 14:40:50 2016 From: gammage.kennedy at gmail.com (Kennedy Gammage) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 14:40:50 -0800 Subject: [ilds] "Shutdown" of the ILDS Listserv In-Reply-To: <600a16a9-b381-4d61-2a04-4afdf9fba599@gmail.com> References: <9dcf83a8-032f-44a9-cf28-9f30e3e2825f@gmail.com> <70CF8FF6-CAF8-414A-9544-54D70FD2A75C@earthlink.net> <600a16a9-b381-4d61-2a04-4afdf9fba599@gmail.com> Message-ID: I would never say "with all due respect" to anyone I do like and respect, so you are off the hook James! Still, to be very brief: * The ILDS is not at all as transparent as it should be. * Hopefully Paul can confirm my dues check finally arrived. * Maybe dues-paying members should be polled regularly. Thanks - Ken On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 2:29 PM, James Gifford wrote: > Hi all, > > On 2016-12-14 1:32 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > >> Had James Gifford?s wording been used ... I doubt >> there would now be a ruckus >> > > There's always a ruckus for one reason or another, so I don't doubt we'd > have one... But it's all clear now, right? So we can set aside the ruckus > for a much happier rumpus, but not a krampus despite the timing? I hope so. > > Publishing the >> minutes of Board meetings would forestall such confusion >> > > I'd actually have to check where the minutes are distributed (anyone???), > but they do go out. The meaningful information is more in the way of > determining the nominations committee, confirming conference venues, the > budget, and so forth. > > But to avoid ongoing confusion, I think the troubles of the listserv are > fairly simple when listed: > > 1) conduct & resulting (often off-list) conflict > 2) the widespread abandonment of the platform as it ages & other options > rise > 3) the contingency of hosting & administrating the list > > I don't think we need to air #1 any further apart from the ongoing > encouragement that we aim for productive and mutually beneficial > interactions in whatever communities we engage with others. Likewise, I > think I set out the plain issues of #2 yesterday -- just as Twitter shut > down Vine and Microsoft or whoever will eventually close down MySpace, or > how Netflix crushed the ubiquity of Blockbuster, this aging technology > won't go on forever. > > #3 is more prosaic. We rely on a host institution and my personal ongoing > research connections with it for the listserv. No one wants to do > volunteer work for which they are perpetually attacked and disparaged, and > no one controls when a hosting institution simply decides not to replace an > aging server. Those contingencies mean that while it may not be urgent > today, we should (at least in the Executive Board) continue to be mindful > of the fact that at some point it will. And problems with #1 will certainly > exacerbate the sense of urgency around #3. > > > All best, > James > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Wed Dec 14 14:58:06 2016 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 14:58:06 -0800 Subject: [ilds] "Shutdown" of the ILDS Listserv In-Reply-To: References: <9dcf83a8-032f-44a9-cf28-9f30e3e2825f@gmail.com> <70CF8FF6-CAF8-414A-9544-54D70FD2A75C@earthlink.net> <600a16a9-b381-4d61-2a04-4afdf9fba599@gmail.com> Message-ID: Duly noted, Ken, and thanks for being upfront about it. I'll avoid doing a Rodney Dangerfield impersonation now... I won't be at the next exec meeting in Louisville but may attend by skype -- I'll make sure they have the topic ready for discussion. I will hasten to note, I'm not going because it costs as much as travel to Europe for me, and I already ate through my research budget for the academic year before November... I don't usually get it reimbursed, but I have too many MORE things not covered to add it to the pile this time. That's to say, those who do the work do it because they want to serve -- if there's a transparency problem, it's not intentional and most likely comes from running out of time and then having a backlog to work through. At least, that's always been *my* challenge. Also, since the listserv does not reach all members, we can't use it to do some of that communication. We've had "better communications" at the front of the discussions for how to eventually update/replace things. And since we don't all "do respect as due," very often those discussions turn to putting out fires rather than addressing less urgent (though important) troubles. 2016 has been a year of dumpster fires. If they're out, hopefully the important but non-exigent things can really progress. Best, James On 2016-12-14 2:40 PM, Kennedy Gammage wrote: > I would never say "with all due respect" to anyone I do like and > respect, so you are off the hook James! > > Still, to be very brief: > > * The ILDS is not at all as transparent as it should be. > * Hopefully Paul can confirm my dues check finally arrived. > * Maybe dues-paying members should be polled regularly. > > Thanks - Ken From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Wed Dec 14 18:51:42 2016 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 18:51:42 -0800 Subject: [ilds] Bruce's reply and suggestion In-Reply-To: <0008193D-A160-4B44-9C36-CCBD30157808@earthlink.net> References: <3B4E8DB2-C649-4410-A777-8687019B7D78@earthlink.net> <000001d25589$126539b0$372fad10$@earthlink.net> <0008193D-A160-4B44-9C36-CCBD30157808@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <93fc3439-ccf6-b2a6-bee4-147ebffe5d2a@gmail.com> Hi all, On 2016-12-13 2:43 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > I'm not questioning the Board's > "legitimacy," although I think the > election process should be opened to > more people than those attending a > biennial meeting. Perhaps some > online voting, as, I believe, is > done at the MLA? This might need to be addressed along with the comments on bylaws -- we last talked about revising the bylaws more than 12 years ago, and the response was a resounding "if it ain't broke, don't even take the lid off." We've kept to that since -- my personal sense is that this is a matter of not just being heard but feeling heard, so tinkering may well be a secondary matter to demonstrating that the board is responsive. A challenge to online voting is that it would negate the nominations from the floor that happen during the conference. Both online voting and nominations during the ILDS business meeting are good ways to ensure meaningful participation from the membership, but they are not mutually compatible... I might lean toward saying "it ain't broke" for the time being on that front. All best, James From dtart at bigpond.net.au Wed Dec 14 19:22:14 2016 From: dtart at bigpond.net.au (Denise Tart & David Green) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 14:22:14 +1100 Subject: [ilds] Bruce's reply and suggestion In-Reply-To: <002c01d25581$ee495090$cadbf1b0$@earthlink.net> References: <002c01d25581$ee495090$cadbf1b0$@earthlink.net> Message-ID: Anne, Given that some members live in the far flung reaches of the world, like Australia for example, I think all paid up members need to be communicated with about such things. Presumably we are all entitled a vote for positions on the ExCom. Having to attend OMG would preclude those unable to attend for whatever reason from being in the know. So yeah, across the board please. David Sent from my iPad > On 14 Dec. 2016, at 7:46 am, Anne Zahlan wrote: > > Biographies of those nominated for posts on the executive board were distributed to members at the meeting in Crete (before the vote was taken). Permission to circulate the information at the meeting was granted, but posting on the internet would require additional permission. Perhaps a hard copy of the officers/board members CVs could be sent to the members, either across the board or on request. > A > > From: ILDS [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of PETER BALDWIN > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 2:56 PM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] Bruce's reply and suggestion > > A couple of points: > > 1. I think the Exec Board should take shared responsibility for the management of what is currently listserve and this should not fall solely on the shoulders of Jamie or you, Pamela > > 2. In that case, the responsibility needs to be written into Article VI (A) of the bye-laws > > 3. Whilst their consent should be sought, is it not implied that those elected to the Exec Board should have their qualifications published via a short-firm cv? > > For future consideration- > > 4. The current issue suggests a lack of accountability of the whole Exec Board to the membership. > > 5. I am not clear from Art V of the bye-laws who elects the society officers. This bye-law is silent on the issue. > > Peter > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 13 Dec 2016, at 19:23, Pamela Francis wrote: > > I can't tell you all how relieved I am that we have come to some consensus (not final, I'm sure, but we're getting there) about purpose and organization of the listserve. I think we should ask James Gifford's opinion on all this, since he is our current moderator. I have never had a problem with James, but I was just throwing out ways to make everyone feel a bit more comfortable. That we can discuss later. > I know the names of the Executive Committee members were listed in the newest Herald, but admittedly, they were not accompanied by CVs or resumes; here we have another issue entirely, which is that of people's privacy. I am not concerned at all, given that my picture, name, bio, etc. is all over the internet, but we have some members who are understandably reticent to reveal much personal history. I will drop a line to the Board, though, to see what we can come up with that will "introduce" everyone there to everyone on the listserve. > Off to give my Shakespeare final--wishing you all the best--pamela > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From delospeter at hotmail.com Wed Dec 14 20:47:06 2016 From: delospeter at hotmail.com (PETER BALDWIN) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 04:47:06 +0000 Subject: [ilds] Bruce's reply and suggestion In-Reply-To: References: <002c01d25581$ee495090$cadbf1b0$@earthlink.net>, Message-ID: I am happy to help draft a revision of the bye-laws should the Ex Comm want to go that way - as Bruce (I think) recalls, I was a lawyer till I retired earlier this year and enjoy simple drafting tasks. Peter Sent from my iPhone On 15 Dec 2016, at 03:47, Denise Tart & David Green > wrote: Anne, Given that some members live in the far flung reaches of the world, like Australia for example, I think all paid up members need to be communicated with about such things. Presumably we are all entitled a vote for positions on the ExCom. Having to attend OMG would preclude those unable to attend for whatever reason from being in the know. So yeah, across the board please. David Sent from my iPad On 14 Dec. 2016, at 7:46 am, Anne Zahlan > wrote: Biographies of those nominated for posts on the executive board were distributed to members at the meeting in Crete (before the vote was taken). Permission to circulate the information at the meeting was granted, but posting on the internet would require additional permission. Perhaps a hard copy of the officers/board members CVs could be sent to the members, either across the board or on request. A From: ILDS [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of PETER BALDWIN Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 2:56 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] Bruce's reply and suggestion A couple of points: 1. I think the Exec Board should take shared responsibility for the management of what is currently listserve and this should not fall solely on the shoulders of Jamie or you, Pamela 2. In that case, the responsibility needs to be written into Article VI (A) of the bye-laws 3. Whilst their consent should be sought, is it not implied that those elected to the Exec Board should have their qualifications published via a short-firm cv? For future consideration- 4. The current issue suggests a lack of accountability of the whole Exec Board to the membership. 5. I am not clear from Art V of the bye-laws who elects the society officers. This bye-law is silent on the issue. Peter Sent from my iPhone On 13 Dec 2016, at 19:23, Pamela Francis > wrote: I can't tell you all how relieved I am that we have come to some consensus (not final, I'm sure, but we're getting there) about purpose and organization of the listserve. I think we should ask James Gifford's opinion on all this, since he is our current moderator. I have never had a problem with James, but I was just throwing out ways to make everyone feel a bit more comfortable. That we can discuss later. I know the names of the Executive Committee members were listed in the newest Herald, but admittedly, they were not accompanied by CVs or resumes; here we have another issue entirely, which is that of people's privacy. I am not concerned at all, given that my picture, name, bio, etc. is all over the internet, but we have some members who are understandably reticent to reveal much personal history. I will drop a line to the Board, though, to see what we can come up with that will "introduce" everyone there to everyone on the listserve. Off to give my Shakespeare final--wishing you all the best--pamela _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Thu Dec 15 08:48:33 2016 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 08:48:33 -0800 Subject: [ilds] ILDS Bylaws Message-ID: <7018C3F0-287C-4A35-BC57-778194091B6A@earthlink.net> I am in favor of changing ILDS bylaws to permit the general, dues-paying membership to vote on the election of the Society?s officers. Presently, these officers are chosen by those attending the biennial meeting. As David Green points out, he lives in Australia and has difficulty in attending the meetings. As a dues-paying member, he would like to have a vote on the Society?s organization. There are probably many others in David?s situation. David?s request seems to me fair and democratic. Changes to the bylaws would probably have to occur under the existing bylaws. This means that my proposed changes could not occur until the next biennial meeting, wherever that may be. I recommend that a lawyer or lawyers draft any changes or amendments to the bylaws. Peter Baldwin is a lawyer and has volunteered his services. Billy Apt is also a lawyer and may be interested in consulting with Peter. In terms of voting, I recommend that this be handled online. The technical details, which I am not diminishing, can be worked out later. The Modern Language Association (MLA) permits online voting at its website. A few words about the MLA. It was founded in 1883 and has over 25,000 members in over 100 countries. The society is incorporated under the laws of the State of Maryland. It has a constitution (which I can provide) and is governed by an Executive Council, whose members are voted into their terms of office. It also has a president, vice president, and other officers. Bruce From zahlan at earthlink.net Thu Dec 15 09:14:30 2016 From: zahlan at earthlink.net (Anne Zahlan) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 12:14:30 -0500 Subject: [ilds] Bruce's reply and suggestion In-Reply-To: References: <002c01d25581$ee495090$cadbf1b0$@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <000401d256f6$b2ae8110$180b8330$@earthlink.net> Perhaps technology will allow for remote participation at some future OMG business meeting. We can certainly consider revisions of voting procedures but changes would require by-laws revisions, a complicated process (See Article X). See Article VI D for stipulation that the nominations committee report directly to membership at the meeting. I proposed a change some years ago providing that the nominating committee report to the membership before the actual meeting, but that amendment was voted down at the Rhodes OMG conference. Unfortunately I was ill and could not attend that meeting and so was not there to argue for the amendment. We could, however, try again. I should note though that the reason for having the nominations committee report directly to the membership was to maintain that committee?s independence from the Executive board. However, as communication stands now, it would be easy enough for the committee to post or send out the proposed slate directly to members a couple of weeks before the election meeting. Things are complicated, but we can certainly revisit procedures; these by-laws are decades old although there have been some modifications over the years, notably the provision to allow for at-large board members. Prior to that change, there were only the three officers and ex-presidents on the board!! Think about that. Another point that some people seem not to realize is that, in fact, it?s difficult to find people willing to dedicate the time, resources, energy to serve on the board and attend annual board meetings and biennial conferences?to do all the work involved with keeping the Society going. The very fact, that as David points out, Durrellians live all over the world makes communication and organization difficult?but, surely, the international character of ILDS is the beauty of the thing. Anne From: ILDS [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Denise Tart & David Green Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 10:22 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] Bruce's reply and suggestion Anne, Given that some members live in the far flung reaches of the world, like Australia for example, I think all paid up members need to be communicated with about such things. Presumably we are all entitled a vote for positions on the ExCom. Having to attend OMG would preclude those unable to attend for whatever reason from being in the know. So yeah, across the board please. David Sent from my iPad On 14 Dec. 2016, at 7:46 am, Anne Zahlan > wrote: Biographies of those nominated for posts on the executive board were distributed to members at the meeting in Crete (before the vote was taken). Permission to circulate the information at the meeting was granted, but posting on the internet would require additional permission. Perhaps a hard copy of the officers/board members CVs could be sent to the members, either across the board or on request. A From: ILDS [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of PETER BALDWIN Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 2:56 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] Bruce's reply and suggestion A couple of points: 1. I think the Exec Board should take shared responsibility for the management of what is currently listserve and this should not fall solely on the shoulders of Jamie or you, Pamela 2. In that case, the responsibility needs to be written into Article VI (A) of the bye-laws 3. Whilst their consent should be sought, is it not implied that those elected to the Exec Board should have their qualifications published via a short-firm cv? For future consideration- 4. The current issue suggests a lack of accountability of the whole Exec Board to the membership. 5. I am not clear from Art V of the bye-laws who elects the society officers. This bye-law is silent on the issue. Peter Sent from my iPhone On 13 Dec 2016, at 19:23, Pamela Francis > wrote: I can't tell you all how relieved I am that we have come to some consensus (not final, I'm sure, but we're getting there) about purpose and organization of the listserve. I think we should ask James Gifford's opinion on all this, since he is our current moderator. I have never had a problem with James, but I was just throwing out ways to make everyone feel a bit more comfortable. That we can discuss later. I know the names of the Executive Committee members were listed in the newest Herald, but admittedly, they were not accompanied by CVs or resumes; here we have another issue entirely, which is that of people's privacy. I am not concerned at all, given that my picture, name, bio, etc. is all over the internet, but we have some members who are understandably reticent to reveal much personal history. I will drop a line to the Board, though, to see what we can come up with that will "introduce" everyone there to everyone on the listserve. Off to give my Shakespeare final--wishing you all the best--pamela _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zahlan at earthlink.net Thu Dec 15 09:17:31 2016 From: zahlan at earthlink.net (Anne Zahlan) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 12:17:31 -0500 Subject: [ilds] Bruce's reply and suggestion In-Reply-To: References: <002c01d25581$ee495090$cadbf1b0$@earthlink.net>, Message-ID: <000901d256f7$1ea5d120$5bf17360$@earthlink.net> There are also template by-laws for non-profits that might help us get started. I don't think there are illegalities in the current by-laws, but we can certainly set things out more clearly and-while we are at it-update procedures as needed. But the process for changing by-laws-appropriately--takes time. A From: ILDS [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of PETER BALDWIN Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 11:47 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] Bruce's reply and suggestion I am happy to help draft a revision of the bye-laws should the Ex Comm want to go that way - as Bruce (I think) recalls, I was a lawyer till I retired earlier this year and enjoy simple drafting tasks. Peter Sent from my iPhone On 15 Dec 2016, at 03:47, Denise Tart & David Green > wrote: Anne, Given that some members live in the far flung reaches of the world, like Australia for example, I think all paid up members need to be communicated with about such things. Presumably we are all entitled a vote for positions on the ExCom. Having to attend OMG would preclude those unable to attend for whatever reason from being in the know. So yeah, across the board please. David Sent from my iPad On 14 Dec. 2016, at 7:46 am, Anne Zahlan > wrote: Biographies of those nominated for posts on the executive board were distributed to members at the meeting in Crete (before the vote was taken). Permission to circulate the information at the meeting was granted, but posting on the internet would require additional permission. Perhaps a hard copy of the officers/board members CVs could be sent to the members, either across the board or on request. A From: ILDS [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of PETER BALDWIN Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 2:56 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] Bruce's reply and suggestion A couple of points: 1. I think the Exec Board should take shared responsibility for the management of what is currently listserve and this should not fall solely on the shoulders of Jamie or you, Pamela 2. In that case, the responsibility needs to be written into Article VI (A) of the bye-laws 3. Whilst their consent should be sought, is it not implied that those elected to the Exec Board should have their qualifications published via a short-firm cv? For future consideration- 4. The current issue suggests a lack of accountability of the whole Exec Board to the membership. 5. I am not clear from Art V of the bye-laws who elects the society officers. This bye-law is silent on the issue. Peter Sent from my iPhone On 13 Dec 2016, at 19:23, Pamela Francis > wrote: I can't tell you all how relieved I am that we have come to some consensus (not final, I'm sure, but we're getting there) about purpose and organization of the listserve. I think we should ask James Gifford's opinion on all this, since he is our current moderator. I have never had a problem with James, but I was just throwing out ways to make everyone feel a bit more comfortable. That we can discuss later. I know the names of the Executive Committee members were listed in the newest Herald, but admittedly, they were not accompanied by CVs or resumes; here we have another issue entirely, which is that of people's privacy. I am not concerned at all, given that my picture, name, bio, etc. is all over the internet, but we have some members who are understandably reticent to reveal much personal history. I will drop a line to the Board, though, to see what we can come up with that will "introduce" everyone there to everyone on the listserve. Off to give my Shakespeare final--wishing you all the best--pamela _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Thu Dec 15 12:00:02 2016 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 12:00:02 -0800 Subject: [ilds] Bruce's reply and suggestion In-Reply-To: <000901d256f7$1ea5d120$5bf17360$@earthlink.net> References: <002c01d25581$ee495090$cadbf1b0$@earthlink.net> <000901d256f7$1ea5d120$5bf17360$@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <09EE3892-6584-4771-96C1-E0BAB6232C4F@earthlink.net> Anne Zahlan has excellent suggestions. I think we need a lawyer here with a knowledge of corporate/non-profit organization and governance. Bruce > On Dec 15, 2016, at 9:17 AM, Anne Zahlan wrote: > > There are also template by-laws for non-profits that might help us get started. I don?t think there are illegalities in the current by-laws, but we can certainly set things out more clearly and?while we are at it?update procedures as needed. But the process for changing by-laws?appropriately--takes time. > A > Perhaps technology will allow for remote participation at some future OMG business meeting. We can certainly consider revisions of voting procedures but changes would require by-laws revisions, a complicated process (See Article X). See Article VI D for stipulation that the nominations committee report directly to membership at the meeting. I proposed a change some years ago providing that the nominating committee report to the membership before the actual meeting, but that amendment was voted down at the Rhodes OMG conference. Unfortunately I was ill and could not attend that meeting and so was not there to argue for the amendment. We could, however, try again. I should note though that the reason for having the nominations committee report directly to the membership was to maintain that committee?s independence from the Executive board. However, as communication stands now, it would be easy enough for the committee to post or send out the proposed slate directly to members a couple of weeks before the election meeting. Things are complicated, but we can certainly revisit procedures; these by-laws are decades old although there have been some modifications over the years, notably the provision to allow for at-large board members. Prior to that change, there were only the three officers and ex-presidents on the board!! Think about that. Another point that some people seem not to realize is that, in fact, it?s difficult to find people willing to dedicate the time, resources, energy to serve on the board and attend annual board meetings and biennial conferences?to do all the work involved with keeping the Society going. The very fact, that as David points out, Durrellians live all over the world makes communication and organization difficult?but, surely, the international character of ILDS is the beauty of the thing. Anne * * * * * 12/15/2016 I am in favor of changing ILDS bylaws to permit the general, dues-paying membership to vote on the election of the Society?s officers. Presently, these officers are chosen by those attending the biennial meeting. As David Green points out, he lives in Australia and has difficulty in attending the meetings. As a dues-paying member, he would like to have a vote on the Society?s organization. There are probably many others in David?s situation. David?s request seems to me fair and democratic. Changes to the bylaws would probably have to occur under the existing bylaws. This means that my proposed changes could not occur until the next biennial meeting, wherever that may be. I recommend that a lawyer or lawyers draft any changes or amendments to the bylaws. Peter Baldwin is a lawyer and has volunteered his services. Billy Apt is also a lawyer and may be interested in consulting with Peter. In terms of voting, I recommend that this be handled online. The technical details, which I am not diminishing, can be worked out later. The Modern Language Association (MLA) permits online voting at its website. A few words about the MLA. It was founded in 1883 and has over 25,000 members in over 100 countries. The society is incorporated under the laws of the State of Maryland. It has a constitution (which I can provide) and is governed by an Executive Council, whose members are voted into their terms of office. It also has a president, vice president, and other officers. Bruce -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clawson at gmail.com Fri Dec 16 12:36:44 2016 From: clawson at gmail.com (James Clawson) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:36:44 -0600 Subject: [ilds] ILDS Listserv Message-ID: I apologize for my delay in responding. At the end of a semester, I have very little time to spend on anything not related to grades and to students planning for graduation. Bruce, I have to respond first to your note before commenting on other threads. You've quoted a portion of what I wrote in the Herald, but you mistranscribed one word, which alters the tone and message. I didn't write "it has with me become a distraction." As you point out, I've never been a regular discussant on the listserv; the daily digests best me every time, with strange threaded replies and many-times-repeated messages, so I dip into the listserv irregularly. What I wrote was that the listserve "has with *TIME* become a distraction from the work it was meant to serve." If the listserv--which was formed to connect readers of Durrell from distant corners of the globe--alters to become a place for personal invective, then it really is distracting from that original mission. And I never said it was an "echo chamber"; rather, I said that the listserv's invisible walls could lead to its becoming something like an echo chamber. Our listserv engages only with the listserv. The society's Twitter and Facebook accounts, by contrast, regularly engage outward beyond the growing but finite lists of people subscribed to these social accounts. I understand and agree with the need for clarification, but I'm not a hermit. It would make sense to attempt engaging me with discussion before asserting that I'm one who "refuses to engage in serious discussion." I really do thank you for the direction your concerns have lead us (to be followed up in later threads); equally, I don't want to be misunderstood, misread, or misrepresented. Best, James Clawson On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 2:00 PM, wrote: > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:09:30 -0800 > From: Bruce Redwine > To: Sumantra Nag > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: [ilds] ILDS Listserv > Message-ID: <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: From clawson at gmail.com Fri Dec 16 12:57:18 2016 From: clawson at gmail.com (James Clawson) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:57:18 -0600 Subject: [ilds] ILDS LISTSERV RIVALS THE ONION FOR LEVITY Message-ID: Ken, I really did laugh out loud. Thank you for that! You make good points with your illustration. The listserv isn't what it was, and no one person is to blame. For many individual reasons, some people now post less often or not at all. And it often isn't animosity that keeps people away, so much as difficulty and inability to devote more time to the forum. Speaking for myself, I can say I've always had trouble navigating the threads of the listserv. Ideally, I would get each email as it comes in and be able to follow things that way. But the nature of my job and of the emails I get from students means that I opt for the "daily digest" with a a single email a day containing all the threads in one location. These emails are hard to follow, as some replies quote every prior message in a thread, and I spend more time scrolling than I spend reading. This is just one of the problems we're hoping to solve with whatever option comes after the listserv. And I want to make it clear that my own disuse of the listserv doesn't mean I unilaterally decided it would be going the way of the dial-up modem. The society doesn't work like that; more importantly, time has its own way with things. We hope soon to be able to show folks that what comes next will be more useful?but it will probably always need moderation of some kind if it's to remain useful, as other contributors point out in other threads. All best, James Clawson On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 2:01 PM, wrote: > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 11:24:46 -0800 > From: Kennedy Gammage > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: [ilds] ILDS LISTSERV RIVALS THE ONION FOR LEVITY > Message-ID: > ail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Just kidding. But I do have a point to make briefly. This is a post on the > listserv from June 28th 2001: > > Subject: [ilds] Could Durrell really swim ??as fast as a dolphin?? > > So asserted the late Patrick Leigh Fermor in a 2003 interview in The Paris > Review. But could this have been literal fact? Opinion on the list appears > divided: Sumantra, Billy, Bruce, James, Jimmy, Panaiotis, Richard, Don, > Charles, Julie, Jacob, Marc, David and Bill may be prepared to agree that > Durrell was indeed a good swimmer, while Grove, Jim, Anna, Roy, Anne, > Pamela, Sumantha, Rui, Gulshan, Sharbani, Leena, Ilyas, Merrianne and Yael > likely feel that some poetic license was invoked. Brewster, Lee, John, Tib, > Anthony, Frederic, Paul, Ed, Rony, Joan, DrD, Peter, Julia, Dorothy, > Allyson, Christine and Sandy are keeping an open mind. > > New topic: was Larry truly proficient on the ocarina? Bruce says probably. > > - Ken > > OK ? so you didn?t LOL. My point is ? look at the number of names I > mentioned! These were all active on the listserv - and some of us still > are, but only a fraction. > > So the question is ? what happened? Is it all Bruce?s fault? Don?t believe > it ? all my friend Bruce and I (and many others) crave is some informed > discussion about matters that matter to us, over a forum ideally suited to > it! But there has been virtually no discussion recently - and now the ILDS > wants to shut the listserv down! Why should this have happened? Yes - some > key players like Bill left us. The technology is a decade old...but it > still works. It is digital not analog. > > Does the forum really need to be moderated? I want to call out James > Gifford for the highest praise for doing all he has done. He has selflessly > passed-through any and all LD-related posts even if some of them were > personally hard to take. > > But if they all were passed through, couldn?t an up-to-date Spam Filter > take care of the rest? > > That?s all for now. Much respect to everyone in our group - Ken > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zahlan at earthlink.net Fri Dec 16 13:23:27 2016 From: zahlan at earthlink.net (Anne Zahlan) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:23:27 -0500 Subject: [ilds] ILDS Listserv In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002101d257e2$a492df80$edb89e80$@earthlink.net> Thanks, Jimmy, for insisting that we respect the text as well as one another. A From: ILDS [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of James Clawson Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 3:37 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] ILDS Listserv I apologize for my delay in responding. At the end of a semester, I have very little time to spend on anything not related to grades and to students planning for graduation. Bruce, I have to respond first to your note before commenting on other threads. You've quoted a portion of what I wrote in the Herald, but you mistranscribed one word, which alters the tone and message. I didn't write "it has with me become a distraction." As you point out, I've never been a regular discussant on the listserv; the daily digests best me every time, with strange threaded replies and many-times-repeated messages, so I dip into the listserv irregularly. What I wrote was that the listserve "has with *TIME* become a distraction from the work it was meant to serve." If the listserv--which was formed to connect readers of Durrell from distant corners of the globe--alters to become a place for personal invective, then it really is distracting from that original mission. And I never said it was an "echo chamber"; rather, I said that the listserv's invisible walls could lead to its becoming something like an echo chamber. Our listserv engages only with the listserv. The society's Twitter and Facebook accounts, by contrast, regularly engage outward beyond the growing but finite lists of people subscribed to these social accounts. I understand and agree with the need for clarification, but I'm not a hermit. It would make sense to attempt engaging me with discussion before asserting that I'm one who "refuses to engage in serious discussion." I really do thank you for the direction your concerns have lead us (to be followed up in later threads); equally, I don't want to be misunderstood, misread, or misrepresented. Best, James Clawson On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 2:00 PM, > wrote: Message: 2 Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:09:30 -0800 From: Bruce Redwine > To: Sumantra Nag > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: [ilds] ILDS Listserv Message-ID: <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: From robin.w.collins at gmail.com Fri Dec 16 13:25:00 2016 From: robin.w.collins at gmail.com (Robin Collins) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:25:00 -0500 Subject: [ilds] bylaws review and AGMs Message-ID: Anne Z wrote: "I am in favor of changing ILDS bylaws to permit the general, dues-paying membership to vote on the election of the Society?s officers. Presently, these officers are chosen by those attending the biennial meeting." I am sure others are also involved in other organizations which have a Board and bylaws (as I am) -- for example, I have been on the board of a half dozen organizations over the years, currently am on two. There are different models but generally the core Executive is chosen by the membership at annual general meetings. The executive, so-elected, then can choose (appoint) a number of other board members as permitted by the bylaws. If there is no AGM held in a physical space, then it makes sense that an online or ballot arrangement occurs. If there is an AGM in a location, those attending would elect and there could be added (in the bylaws) the option of proxies. Not everyone likes proxies because things happen at AGMs that proxy-givers may be unaware of when they hand over their votes. To get charity status in Canada, you will need to have an AGM and a Board that is elected. You don't need a lawyer for this (they cost money), just someone familiar with bylaws. One of us could go through the bylaws and have a quick look if that is desirable. Robin On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 3:00 PM, wrote: > 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: Bruce's reply and suggestion (Bruce Redwine) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 12:00:02 -0800 > From: Bruce Redwine > To: Sumantra Nag > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] Bruce's reply and suggestion > Message-ID: <09EE3892-6584-4771-96C1-E0BAB6232C4F at earthlink.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Anne Zahlan has excellent suggestions. I think we need a lawyer here with > a knowledge of corporate/non-profit organization and governance. > > Bruce > > > > > > > On Dec 15, 2016, at 9:17 AM, Anne Zahlan wrote: > > > > There are also template by-laws for non-profits that might help us get > started. I don?t think there are illegalities in the current by-laws, but > we can certainly set things out more clearly and?while we are at it?update > procedures as needed. But the process for changing > by-laws?appropriately--takes time. > > A > > > > Perhaps technology will allow for remote participation at some future OMG > business meeting. > We can certainly consider revisions of voting procedures but changes would > require by-laws revisions, a complicated process (See Article X). See > Article VI D for stipulation that the nominations committee report directly > to membership at the meeting. I proposed a change some years ago providing > that the nominating committee report to the membership before the actual > meeting, but that amendment was voted down at the Rhodes OMG conference. > Unfortunately I was ill and could not attend that meeting and so was not > there to argue for the amendment. We could, however, try again. I should > note though that the reason for having the nominations committee report > directly to the membership was to maintain that committee?s independence > from the Executive board. However, as communication stands now, it would > be easy enough for the committee to post or send out the proposed slate > directly to members a couple of weeks before the election meeting. > Things are complicated, but we can certainly revisit procedures; these > by-laws are decades old although there have been some modifications over > the years, notably the provision to allow for at-large board members. Prior > to that change, there were only the three officers and ex-presidents on the > board!! Think about that. > Another point that some people seem not to realize is that, in fact, it?s > difficult to find people willing to dedicate the time, resources, energy to > serve on the board and attend annual board meetings and biennial > conferences?to do all the work involved with keeping the Society going. > The very fact, that as David points out, Durrellians live all over the > world makes communication and organization difficult?but, surely, the > international character of ILDS is the beauty of the thing. > Anne > > * * * * * > > 12/15/2016 > > > I am in favor of changing ILDS bylaws to permit the general, dues-paying > membership to vote on the election of the Society?s officers. Presently, > these officers are chosen by those attending the biennial meeting. As > David Green points out, he lives in Australia and has difficulty in > attending the meetings. As a dues-paying member, he would like to have a > vote on the Society?s organization. There are probably many others in > David?s situation. David?s request seems to me fair and democratic. > > Changes to the bylaws would probably have to occur under the existing > bylaws. This means that my proposed changes could not occur until the next > biennial meeting, wherever that may be. > > I recommend that a lawyer or lawyers draft any changes or amendments to > the bylaws. Peter Baldwin is a lawyer and has volunteered his services. > Billy Apt is also a lawyer and may be interested in consulting with Peter. > > In terms of voting, I recommend that this be handled online. The > technical details, which I am not diminishing, can be worked out later. > The Modern Language Association (MLA) permits online voting at its website. > > A few words about the MLA. It was founded in 1883 and has over 25,000 > members in over 100 countries. The society is incorporated under the laws > of the State of Maryland. It has a constitution (which I can provide) and > is governed by an Executive Council, whose members are voted into their > terms of office. It also has a president, vice president, and other > officers. > > Bruce > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: 20161215/c266311b/attachment-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 10 > ************************************* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gammage.kennedy at gmail.com Fri Dec 16 14:25:53 2016 From: gammage.kennedy at gmail.com (Kennedy Gammage) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:25:53 -0800 Subject: [ilds] DURRELL, MILLER, DYLAN THOMAS Message-ID: Enjoying this NEXUS 11 journal, the DEUS LOCI of the Miller Society. An article called ?Meeting Miller? quotes this encounter: Dylan Thomas letter to Vernon Watkins _Pub crawl_ ?Last week I went up to London to meet Henry Miller, who is a dear, mad, mild man, bald and fifty, with great enthusiasm for commonplaces. Also Lawrence Durrell. We [the trio] spent 2 days together, and I returned a convinced wreck. We talked our way through the shabby saloons of nightmare London. (1940)? Excerpted from Letters to Vernon Watkins, by Dylan Thomas (New Directions, 1957) Though the quote is dated 1940, I believe those events actually took place in 1939 ? shortly before the Miller visit to Greece? Thanks - Ken -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zahlan at earthlink.net Fri Dec 16 16:06:49 2016 From: zahlan at earthlink.net (Anne Zahlan) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 19:06:49 -0500 Subject: [ilds] bylaws review and AGMs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001101d257f9$76c74610$6455d230$@earthlink.net> I never said that. You are quoting someone else about ?changing the bylaws to permit the general, dues-paying members to vote on the election of the Society?s officers. . . . . ? This sounds like Bruce. Please don?t misunderstand or misquote me. I agree with you that there is nothing sinister about having officers and board members selected at a general meeting as ILDS currently does. Your suggestion about proxies might be workable. Again, you have misquoted me and misrepresented my position?but clearly not intentionally. Peace, Anne From: ILDS [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Robin Collins Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 4:25 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] bylaws review and AGMs Anne Z wrote: "I am in favor of changing ILDS bylaws to permit the general, dues-paying membership to vote on the election of the Society?s officers. Presently, these officers are chosen by those attending the biennial meeting." I am sure others are also involved in other organizations which have a Board and bylaws (as I am) -- for example, I have been on the board of a half dozen organizations over the years, currently am on two. There are different models but generally the core Executive is chosen by the membership at annual general meetings. The executive, so-elected, then can choose (appoint) a number of other board members as permitted by the bylaws. If there is no AGM held in a physical space, then it makes sense that an online or ballot arrangement occurs. If there is an AGM in a location, those attending would elect and there could be added (in the bylaws) the option of proxies. Not everyone likes proxies because things happen at AGMs that proxy-givers may be unaware of when they hand over their votes. To get charity status in Canada, you will need to have an AGM and a Board that is elected. You don't need a lawyer for this (they cost money), just someone familiar with bylaws. One of us could go through the bylaws and have a quick look if that is desirable. Robin On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 3:00 PM, > wrote: 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: Bruce's reply and suggestion (Bruce Redwine) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 12:00:02 -0800 From: Bruce Redwine > To: Sumantra Nag > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] Bruce's reply and suggestion Message-ID: <09EE3892-6584-4771-96C1-E0BAB6232C4F at earthlink.net > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Anne Zahlan has excellent suggestions. I think we need a lawyer here with a knowledge of corporate/non-profit organization and governance. Bruce > On Dec 15, 2016, at 9:17 AM, Anne Zahlan > wrote: > > There are also template by-laws for non-profits that might help us get started. I don?t think there are illegalities in the current by-laws, but we can certainly set things out more clearly and?while we are at it?update procedures as needed. But the process for changing by-laws?appropriately--takes time. > A > Perhaps technology will allow for remote participation at some future OMG business meeting. We can certainly consider revisions of voting procedures but changes would require by-laws revisions, a complicated process (See Article X). See Article VI D for stipulation that the nominations committee report directly to membership at the meeting. I proposed a change some years ago providing that the nominating committee report to the membership before the actual meeting, but that amendment was voted down at the Rhodes OMG conference. Unfortunately I was ill and could not attend that meeting and so was not there to argue for the amendment. We could, however, try again. I should note though that the reason for having the nominations committee report directly to the membership was to maintain that committee?s independence from the Executive board. However, as communication stands now, it would be easy enough for the committee to post or send out the proposed slate directly to members a couple of weeks before the election meeting. Things are complicated, but we can certainly revisit procedures; these by-laws are decades old although there have been some modifications over the years, notably the provision to allow for at-large board members. Prior to that change, there were only the three officers and ex-presidents on the board!! Think about that. Another point that some people seem not to realize is that, in fact, it?s difficult to find people willing to dedicate the time, resources, energy to serve on the board and attend annual board meetings and biennial conferences?to do all the work involved with keeping the Society going. The very fact, that as David points out, Durrellians live all over the world makes communication and organization difficult?but, surely, the international character of ILDS is the beauty of the thing. Anne * * * * * 12/15/2016 I am in favor of changing ILDS bylaws to permit the general, dues-paying membership to vote on the election of the Society?s officers. Presently, these officers are chosen by those attending the biennial meeting. As David Green points out, he lives in Australia and has difficulty in attending the meetings. As a dues-paying member, he would like to have a vote on the Society?s organization. There are probably many others in David?s situation. David?s request seems to me fair and democratic. Changes to the bylaws would probably have to occur under the existing bylaws. This means that my proposed changes could not occur until the next biennial meeting, wherever that may be. I recommend that a lawyer or lawyers draft any changes or amendments to the bylaws. Peter Baldwin is a lawyer and has volunteered his services. Billy Apt is also a lawyer and may be interested in consulting with Peter. In terms of voting, I recommend that this be handled online. The technical details, which I am not diminishing, can be worked out later. The Modern Language Association (MLA) permits online voting at its website. A few words about the MLA. It was founded in 1883 and has over 25,000 members in over 100 countries. The society is incorporated under the laws of the State of Maryland. It has a constitution (which I can provide) and is governed by an Executive Council, whose members are voted into their terms of office. It also has a president, vice president, and other officers. Bruce -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ 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 10 ************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Sat Dec 17 08:13:07 2016 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 08:13:07 -0800 Subject: [ilds] The Function of the ILDS Listserv In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: James Clawson, Thanks for the response. Errors notwithstanding, I am not in the habit of misrepresenting people?s views. I have certainly misread and misunderstood others, but I do not deliberately misrepresent. First, I copied your statement from the pdf file sent by Paul Lorenz. For some reason, ?with time? was not copied, and I failed to notice the fact. (I?ve no idea how ?with me? got added?a deleted version?) Apparently, you intended something like ?obsolescence through time.? In any case, Pamela Francis?s emphatic??it WILL be terminated at some point, but in order to move to another platform??leaves no doubt that some form of the listserv will be eliminated. I am not familiar with the terminology of computer/internet software. I and several others took ?platform? to mean the listserv itself, as a forum for extended discussion?to be replaced by Twitter and Facebook (other ?platforms? in my reckoning). This subtlety was not clear in your post in the Herald. As I mentioned in a recent response to James Gifford?s email, such confusion can easily be avoided if the general membership were kept informed of discussions within the Executive Board. That is, make those minutes available to the membership. I made this request years ago under the presidency of Donald Kaczvinsky. Two, given the context of recent personal disputes on the listserv, along with the participation of only a handful of discussants, I take your use of ?echo chamber? as a euphemism for what you see the listserv has turned into, that is, as a forum that has become, in your words, ?a distraction from the work it was meant to serve.? So, the clear implication?let?s get rid of it. Three, as to Twitter and Facebook, I do not see these as places for serious discussion. Four, with regard to expressing opinions, my model is the British Parliament, where debates are courteous but directed and pointed. My involvement with the ILDS is simple?I am interested in discussing ideas and issues related to Lawrence Durrell. I am also concerned that the Society be administered fairly, so that all its dues-paying members have a voice in its governance. I am not interested in high tea on the ?echoing green.? Best, Bruce > On Dec 16, 2016, at 12:36 PM, James Clawson wrote: > > I apologize for my delay in responding. At the end of a semester, I have very little time to spend on anything not related to grades and to students planning for graduation. > > Bruce, I have to respond first to your note before commenting on other threads. You've quoted a portion of what I wrote in the Herald, but you mistranscribed one word, which alters the tone and message. I didn't write "it has with me become a distraction." As you point out, I've never been a regular discussant on the listserv; the daily digests best me every time, with strange threaded replies and many-times-repeated messages, so I dip into the listserv irregularly. What I wrote was that the listserve "has with *TIME* become a distraction from the work it was meant to serve." If the listserv--which was formed to connect readers of Durrell from distant corners of the globe--alters to become a place for personal invective, then it really is distracting from that original mission. And I never said it was an "echo chamber"; rather, I said that the listserv's invisible walls could lead to its becoming something like an echo chamber. Our listserv engages only with the listserv. The society's Twitter and Facebook accounts, by contrast, regularly engage outward beyond the growing but finite lists of people subscribed to these social accounts. > > I understand and agree with the need for clarification, but I'm not a hermit. It would make sense to attempt engaging me with discussion before asserting that I'm one who "refuses to engage in serious discussion." I really do thank you for the direction your concerns have lead us (to be followed up in later threads); equally, I don't want to be misunderstood, misread, or misrepresented. > > Best, > James Clawson > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 2:00 PM, > wrote: > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:09:30 -0800 > From: Bruce Redwine > > To: Sumantra Nag > > Cc: Bruce Redwine > > Subject: [ilds] ILDS Listserv > Message-ID: <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: From wilded at hotmail.com Sat Dec 17 10:17:10 2016 From: wilded at hotmail.com (david wilde) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 18:17:10 +0000 Subject: [ilds] DURRELL, MILLER, DYLAN THOMAS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: OMG! Nice!! WOW!!! ________________________________ From: ILDS on behalf of Kennedy Gammage Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 3:25 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: [ilds] DURRELL, MILLER, DYLAN THOMAS Enjoying this NEXUS 11 journal, the DEUS LOCI of the Miller Society. An article called "Meeting Miller" quotes this encounter: Dylan Thomas letter to Vernon Watkins _Pub crawl_ 'Last week I went up to London to meet Henry Miller, who is a dear, mad, mild man, bald and fifty, with great enthusiasm for commonplaces. Also Lawrence Durrell. We [the trio] spent 2 days together, and I returned a convinced wreck. We talked our way through the shabby saloons of nightmare London. (1940)' Excerpted from Letters to Vernon Watkins, by Dylan Thomas (New Directions, 1957) Though the quote is dated 1940, I believe those events actually took place in 1939 - shortly before the Miller visit to Greece? Thanks - Ken -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Sat Dec 17 10:30:52 2016 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 10:30:52 -0800 Subject: [ilds] DURRELL, MILLER, DYLAN THOMAS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b3ff7b9-bdb9-d13f-81d8-c3227fdf74ff@gmail.com> Durrell gives his version of the story in "The Shades of Dylan Thomas," a variant ts. of which is held at the University of Victoria. Indeed, several of the letters are mis-dated in their published form (those originals I've seen didn't actually have dates), some by years. Durrell and Thomas first met in December 1937. I'd have to double check, but I think the meeting with Miller and Thomas' hiding in the pub across the street was also December 1937. I'd better order my copy of Nexus... All best, James On 2016-12-17 10:17 AM, david wilde wrote: > OMG! Nice!! WOW!!! > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* ILDS on behalf of Kennedy Gammage > > *Sent:* Friday, December 16, 2016 3:25 PM > *To:* ilds at lists.uvic.ca > *Subject:* [ilds] DURRELL, MILLER, DYLAN THOMAS > > Enjoying this NEXUS 11 journal, the DEUS LOCI of the Miller Society. > > An article called ?Meeting Miller? quotes this encounter: > > Dylan Thomas letter to Vernon Watkins _Pub crawl_ > > ?Last week I went up to London to meet Henry Miller, who is a dear, mad, > mild man, bald and fifty, with great enthusiasm for commonplaces. Also > Lawrence Durrell. We [the trio] spent 2 days together, and I returned a > convinced wreck. We talked our way through the shabby saloons of > nightmare London. (1940)? > > Excerpted from Letters to Vernon Watkins, by Dylan Thomas (New > Directions, 1957) > > Though the quote is dated 1940, I believe those events actually took > place in 1939 ? shortly before the Miller visit to Greece? > > Thanks - Ken From robin.w.collins at gmail.com Sat Dec 17 12:29:24 2016 From: robin.w.collins at gmail.com (Robin Collins) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 15:29:24 -0500 Subject: [ilds] Bylaw review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49321F32-FEDD-40BF-BB9D-43D47F46E139@gmail.com> Apologies, it was Bruce, not Anne Z. I copied and pasted out of context. Robin ---------------------------------- In the dark times, will there also be singing? Yes, there will be singing. About the dark times. -- Bertolt Brecht > > > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:25:00 -0500 > From: Robin Collins > To: "ilds at lists.uvic.ca" > Subject: Re: [ilds] bylaws review and AGMs > Message-ID: > > Anne Z wrote: "I am in favor of changing ILDS bylaws to permit the general, > dues-paying membership to vote on the election of the Society?s officers. > Presently, these officers are chosen by those attending the biennial > meeting." > > I am sure others are also involved in other organizations which have a > Board and bylaws (as I am) -- for example, I have been on the board of a > half dozen organizations over the years, currently am on two. There are > different models but generally the core Executive is chosen by the > membership at annual general meetings. The executive, so-elected, then can > choose (appoint) a number of other board members as permitted by the > bylaws. > > If there is no AGM held in a physical space, then it makes sense that an > online or ballot arrangement occurs. If there is an AGM in a location, > those attending would elect and there could be added (in the bylaws) the > option of proxies. Not everyone likes proxies because things happen at AGMs > that proxy-givers may be unaware of when they hand over their votes. To get > charity status in Canada, you will need to have an AGM and a Board that is > elected. > > You don't need a lawyer for this (they cost money), just someone familiar > with bylaws. One of us could go through the bylaws and have a quick look if > that is desirable. > > Robin >> >> Anne Zahlan has excellent suggestions. I think we need a lawyer here with >> a knowledge of corporate/non-profit organization and governance. >> >> Bruce >> >> >> > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 19:06:49 -0500 > From: "Anne Zahlan" > To: > Subject: Re: [ilds] bylaws review and AGMs > Message-ID: <001101d257f9$76c74610$6455d230$@earthlink.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > I never said that. You are quoting someone else about ?changing the bylaws to permit the general, dues-paying members to vote on the election of the Society?s officers. . . . . ? This sounds like Bruce. Please don?t misunderstand or misquote me. > > > > I agree with you that there is nothing sinister about having officers and board members selected at a general meeting as ILDS currently does. Your suggestion about proxies might be workable. > > > > Again, you have misquoted me and misrepresented my position?but clearly not intentionally. > > > > Peace, > > Anne > > > > From: ILDS [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Robin Collins > Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 4:25 PM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] bylaws review and AGMs > > > > Anne Z wrote: "I am in favor of changing ILDS bylaws to permit the general, dues-paying membership to vote on the election of the Society?s officers. Presently, these officers are chosen by those attending the biennial meeting." > > > > I am sure others are also involved in other organizations which have a Board and bylaws (as I am) -- for example, I have been on the board of a half dozen organizations over the years, currently am on two. There are different models but generally the core Executive is chosen by the membership at annual general meetings. The executive, so-elected, then can choose (appoint) a number of other board members as permitted by the bylaws. > > > > If there is no AGM held in a physical space, then it makes sense that an online or ballot arrangement occurs. If there is an AGM in a location, those attending would elect and there could be added (in the bylaws) the option of proxies. Not everyone likes proxies because things happen at AGMs that proxy-givers may be unaware of when they hand over their votes. To get charity status in Canada, you will need to have an AGM and a Board that is elected. > > > > You don't need a lawyer for this (they cost money), just someone familiar with bylaws. One of us could go through the bylaws and have a quick look if that is desirable. > > > > Robin > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dtart at bigpond.net.au Sat Dec 17 12:42:52 2016 From: dtart at bigpond.net.au (Denise Tart & David Green) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 07:42:52 +1100 Subject: [ilds] DURRELL, MILLER, DYLAN THOMAS In-Reply-To: <7b3ff7b9-bdb9-d13f-81d8-c3227fdf74ff@gmail.com> References: <7b3ff7b9-bdb9-d13f-81d8-c3227fdf74ff@gmail.com> Message-ID: <36F36BD3-454F-4989-916A-027A6A642356@bigpond.net.au> In response to Durrell's gushing enthusiasm for Corfu, Thomas wrote: "the greatest hymns to the sun are written in the dark." Thomas was one of the best poets ever. Wonder how much influence he had on Larry? Their friendship and correspondence seems to have ended about 1940. David Sent from my iPad > On 18 Dec. 2016, at 5:30 am, James Gifford wrote: > > Durrell gives his version of the story in "The Shades of Dylan Thomas," a variant ts. of which is held at the University of Victoria. Indeed, several of the letters are mis-dated in their published form (those originals I've seen didn't actually have dates), some by years. > > Durrell and Thomas first met in December 1937. I'd have to double check, but I think the meeting with Miller and Thomas' hiding in the pub across the street was also December 1937. > > I'd better order my copy of Nexus... > > All best, > James > >> On 2016-12-17 10:17 AM, david wilde wrote: >> OMG! Nice!! WOW!!! >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* ILDS on behalf of Kennedy Gammage >> >> *Sent:* Friday, December 16, 2016 3:25 PM >> *To:* ilds at lists.uvic.ca >> *Subject:* [ilds] DURRELL, MILLER, DYLAN THOMAS >> >> Enjoying this NEXUS 11 journal, the DEUS LOCI of the Miller Society. >> >> An article called ?Meeting Miller? quotes this encounter: >> >> Dylan Thomas letter to Vernon Watkins _Pub crawl_ >> >> ?Last week I went up to London to meet Henry Miller, who is a dear, mad, >> mild man, bald and fifty, with great enthusiasm for commonplaces. Also >> Lawrence Durrell. We [the trio] spent 2 days together, and I returned a >> convinced wreck. We talked our way through the shabby saloons of >> nightmare London. (1940)? >> >> Excerpted from Letters to Vernon Watkins, by Dylan Thomas (New >> Directions, 1957) >> >> Though the quote is dated 1940, I believe those events actually took >> place in 1939 ? shortly before the Miller visit to Greece? >> >> Thanks - Ken > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Sat Dec 17 13:31:50 2016 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 13:31:50 -0800 Subject: [ilds] DURRELL, MILLER, DYLAN THOMAS In-Reply-To: <36F36BD3-454F-4989-916A-027A6A642356@bigpond.net.au> References: <7b3ff7b9-bdb9-d13f-81d8-c3227fdf74ff@gmail.com> <36F36BD3-454F-4989-916A-027A6A642356@bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <854bc15a-28f7-e8b7-c641-d93a2d21e5d3@gmail.com> On 2016-12-17 12:42 PM, Denise Tart & David Green wrote: > Wonder how much influence he had on Larry? I'd see that one as going in both directions. For prose, Durrell & Thomas share some significant influences as well, and of course their peculiar historical moment in the late inter-war years. > Their friendship and correspondence seems to have ended about 1940. The war pulled them in very different directions, and then Thomas was gone too young... All best, James