Re: the quiet life

It seems to me the list hasn't been all that combative. John G's been posting
largely substantial posts about Salinger interspersed with the occasional barbs
(some more than others -- I haven't been complaining about his cheap shots at
academics because he's actually been saying more than that), Daniel's been doing
his usual one liners, I've been mostly quiet, Scottie's been trying to provoke
discussion, Kim and Cec. have been chiming in occasionally, Robbie's been
undoubtedly busy doing other things, as well as Matt K., and John O. hasn't said
too much lately either. Will got a bit p-oed at John G's interpretation of one
of his e-mails, then brought up the Yid thing from awhile back that I hadn't
heard of in quite some time. I don't blame him for leaving, but don't blame
anyone for his leaving either.

Gonna miss Will on the list but hope to keep in touch privately.

In addition to this, we had a rather nice flurry of posts from new list members
and lurkers. Very nice.

I don't mind the arguments and the barbs until they take over the entire
discussion, or too much of it. Seems like we've been light years away from that
situation in quite some time.

So what's the big deal? :). I really don't understand the last two posts
requesting to unsubscribe...they seem to have come out of nowhere.

Jim

Scottie Bowman wrote:

> In my time, even I have unsubscribed from a couple of lists.
> But it was always from boredom, never offence. (Remember
> what Mummy taught us? 'Sticks & stones may break my bones....')
> And it was always with great reluctance. My curiosity & optimism
> were such that I hated to think something of interest might,
> just MIGHT, have turned up after I'd gone. I keep forgetting
> there are people who value tranquility above stimulation.
>
> Tim says he has nothing against 'a good knock-down, drag-out
> argument' - it's just he'd rather it didn't take place here.
> Well, what DOES he want? More instruction on how to acquire
> back numbers of the New Yorker? Happy memories of 'the first
> time I read the Catcher'? What a quaint old buffer JDS must be
> & what CAN he have stored away in that house in the woods?
> Yet another deconstruction of feet? 'How I gain popularity with
> my first years by invoking the ducks in Central Park'?
>
> The sad fact is these topics or similarly Salinger-based ones appear,
> prompt (if they're lucky) a response or two - then sputter out like
> candles in the rain.
>
> The recent really lively exchanges - authorial intent, Foucault, et al -
> bore only marginal relevance to Salinger but were powered by strong
> personal convictions & engagement. What if voices WERE
> occasionally raised? At least one opened the mailbox each morning
> eager to find out what Jim or Robbie or the Johns or Daniel
> (or even, at a pinch, Kim or Cec) had to say.
>
> If this were all too much for the sensitive, there's no actual federal
> statute that requires each post be read. And if the very name of
> a particular poster were too upsetting, what about the filter facility
> that, so far as I know, most internet programs now offer?
> They're dead easy to trigger. Even my rheumy eye & bony fingers
> can bring them into play. If you like, I'll offer guidance.
>
> Scottie B.
>
> -
> * Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
> * UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Sun Mar 2 15:27:07 2003