Sher Aspect Paper

[john kieselhorst]

At 12:43 PM 5/14/97 -0400, Karen McDowell wrote:
>Dear Seelangers,
>
>        I, for one, am grateful Benjamin Sher introduced me to his work on
>aspect through this SEELANGS list.  I don't know why anyone would get upset
>about his extra messages (because he was having technical problems).  We
>all have them, and anyone who doesn't like them can just delete them.  His
>paper on aspect, which I received via this medium, is very interesting and
>thought-provoking.  Karen McDowell
>
>Karen McDowell
>University of Virginia
>109 Cabell Hall, Dept. of Slavic Languages
>Charlottesville, VA  22903
>804/924-3548
>mcdowell at virginia.edu

Dear SEELANGERS:
        I would like to apologize to Mr. Sher for my charge of
"commercialism"; it was unfounded. Having waited for all of his documents
to fill my mailbox (some 10-12), I simply deleted them, but only after I
had saved them as data files, a time-consuming process on my computer.

        Still, it seems to me the transmission of an entire essay on the
list involves questionable netiquette. Prof. McDowell calls Mr. Sher's
paper "thought-provoking"; I have no reason to doubt this evaluation.  But
I have also written what I and some of my colleages think is a
"thought-provoking" article (25 pp.) on the difference between Symbolism
and Decadence; I also have a dissertation that might be described as
thought provoking (280 pp.); should I post these to the list??

        Of course I'm being facetious, but I think there are some important
and serious use problems here.  First, I think that most (if not all)
scholars believe that their work is interesting and stimulating, and
contributes in some way to our field.  But a legitmate question about the
appropriate use of the list serve arises when we start transmitting our
papers in a "to whom it may concern" fashion.  If Mr. Sher's essay posting
becomes a precedent, I fear that many of the important transmissions of
scholarly debate and discussion, and others regarding job postings and
conference information, will be lost in the resulting deluge.

        To respond that one can "simply delete" these overlooks the time
required in waiting for the messages to queue; also, lengthy transmissions
(like that of Mr. Sher) must be saved as files, which requires active
participation; if I go back to work thinking that my messages will simply
queue up, the computer is left in a waiting mode, requiring that I decide
whether to save the file.


        My joke about posting my dissertation to the list is intended to
raise the question of boundaries. Interesting (and even uninteresting)
scholarship should certainly be shared, and the list provides a
(relatively) new medium for this exchange.  We now have the opportunity to
share practically unlimited amounts of information electronically. The
question I think we need to constantly ask ourselves is, when does as much
as possible become too much to handle?  Bear in mind that most in this
profession receive large amounts of email that  directly concerns them and
must be sorted through along with all of the listserve postings.

         We have a list to serve our purposes, but what are these?  Should
the list become a sort of electronic alternative to scholarly journals and
the publishing industry in general?  Perhaps this is what is desired by
some.  Personally I have my doubts;  I wonder whether the lack of review
will simply lead to queues glutted with cyber-junk mail (this comment
should in no way be taken as reference to Mr. Sher's essay), in which
important ideas get lost in the sheer bulk of material. In that case, what
purpose will have been served?


I sincerely welcome response from list members, as the questions I raise
above are questions that must be decided by the community; if I am a lone,
disgruntled user of this list, then I certainly have the option of logging
off.

Thank you.


John Kieselhorst
Northwestern University