Subject
Re: Braffort on NABOKV-L (fwd)
Date
Body
From: Galya Diment <galya@u.washington.edu>
Every now and then we seem to go through these highly emotional
discussions as to what the list is and what it should strive to be. It's
healthy -- but I do hope people stay patient through them and don't make
quick, anger-driven decisions. There were things in Mr. Braffort's posting
I agreed with -- his comments on the lawsuit, for example. There were
also things I disagreed with -- I definitely do not believe that there
should even be such a notion in play as "un-nabokovian discussions." It
may have been Nabokov's wish that his critics and readers do not discuss a
whole number of issues (gender, homosexuality, Freud) but why should the
list be governed by that? Isn't that also a form of censorship that many
of us abhor, no matter how we may personally feel about some of these
topics? I do hope we do not believe in "enlightened tyrants" anymore, or
"useful censorship" versus the one we don't agree with.
Obviously -- and excuse the cliche -- no list can be everything to all
people. I like the fact that our audience has expanded so greatly over the
years and that Nabokov Studies is much less of an exclusive club than it
used to be in not so distant past. As to the quality of discussions, as in
everything else, it varies -- but the list is not a scholarly journal
where quality controls have to be strict. The beauty of it is precisely in
people sharing their "raw" insights, thoughts, and comments, many of which
will never be published but without which some of us would be so much
poorer.
I hope we continue in that mode, with inevitable and agonized discussions
of the list's direction and goals from time to time, but without major
casualties.
Galya Diment, Co-Editor, Nabokv-L
Every now and then we seem to go through these highly emotional
discussions as to what the list is and what it should strive to be. It's
healthy -- but I do hope people stay patient through them and don't make
quick, anger-driven decisions. There were things in Mr. Braffort's posting
I agreed with -- his comments on the lawsuit, for example. There were
also things I disagreed with -- I definitely do not believe that there
should even be such a notion in play as "un-nabokovian discussions." It
may have been Nabokov's wish that his critics and readers do not discuss a
whole number of issues (gender, homosexuality, Freud) but why should the
list be governed by that? Isn't that also a form of censorship that many
of us abhor, no matter how we may personally feel about some of these
topics? I do hope we do not believe in "enlightened tyrants" anymore, or
"useful censorship" versus the one we don't agree with.
Obviously -- and excuse the cliche -- no list can be everything to all
people. I like the fact that our audience has expanded so greatly over the
years and that Nabokov Studies is much less of an exclusive club than it
used to be in not so distant past. As to the quality of discussions, as in
everything else, it varies -- but the list is not a scholarly journal
where quality controls have to be strict. The beauty of it is precisely in
people sharing their "raw" insights, thoughts, and comments, many of which
will never be published but without which some of us would be so much
poorer.
I hope we continue in that mode, with inevitable and agonized discussions
of the list's direction and goals from time to time, but without major
casualties.
Galya Diment, Co-Editor, Nabokv-L