Re: The Good Old Days
Sundeep Dougal (holden@giasdl01.vsnl.net.in)
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 07:47:32 +0530
Hey, Mattis, I should have taken more care not to even remotely imply
any unintentional slur on the very capable current crop of bananafish. I
haven't been away anywhere -- just that I have not been able to keep up
with the Bananafish mail that dutifully goes into its own folder. It's
always been a delight to read your contributions, though, and many of
the current subscribers', old or new, too numerous to name. It's just a
case of top of the mind (and a sleep-deprived mind at that) rattling off
whatever I did. Bruce, for example, recently came out with a fresh burst
of messages that, alas, after scanning cursorily, I have just put on
hold to read later and respond to, for now. In re. what I said about
those away writing books and so on, I think I may have been alluding to
that now-not-so-new bio on JDS and missing Matt K. on the list.
As for nostalgia: alas, to repeat what is certainly a cliche, even
nostalgia is not the same anymore, I feel, . Surely the result of not
having been out in fresh air much and other such. Not to mention,
the advancing years, new interests, only so many hours competing
for so much more available to read, to see, to experience, to earn a
living, and so on...
Far be it from me, though, to suggest that it is not possible to keep
discussion on JDS alive for those so interested. Besides, I seriously
have never been one with much enthusiasm for discussion per se, apart
from as conversational theory -- sheer crap or priceless, as old
(actually, young) Seymour would say -- though it does provide for some
amusement every now and then. And there is that community feeling, of
having had that shared experience and so on, too.
I am not at all by any means trying to play down the significance of
differing perspectives and fresh ways of seeing, and your point about
not having a recent first-hand experience of the text, and hazy
recollections through the filter of unreliable memory being the real
culprit, I am sure, is valid enough. It's just that I haven't been
compelled enough for some time to read JDS. Maybe that time will come
soon. Happens to me every now and then. And even then I doubt if I would
have anything revelatory or meaningful to add. Yes, I agree that if my
experience of reading them is intense enough, and if I feel so
compelled, I might indulge in some raving and ranting too. To be very
honest, much as I like reading gossip about JDS and so on, I have never
really been much enamoured by the 'critical' books on him. Passion,
yes -- that I understand and relate well to. The fact that the books
gripped me, held my interest, make me want to read them every now and
then is reason enough for me. And the same goes for discussions and what
makes them captivating. Or not. And then mileages vary, in any case,
from person to person. Different strokes and all that.
I realise that I am not being very cogent right now and blame it all on
lack of sleep. More some other time. May I also add, in this same
sleep-deprived state, my apologies to Sean? I wasn't aware that there
were Microsoft programmers, or other employees, on this list. I plead
defense on the basis of the weasel word "alleged". All generalizations
are bad (including this one!) -- and I am sure that one is too. I am
sure it is all those "divide by zero error followed by a program crash"
that lead to such baseless rumours.
My congratulations to Mike for his display of mathematical intelligence,
and to Sequila for her creativity and intelligence.
Now I must beg off and go off into my lurk-mode, to surface only perhaps
to apologise for any other offense I might inadvertently have committed
in this post, not the least of which is not to edit it to make it
shorter...
Sonny