Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 12:34:54 +0000 (GMT)
From: Jon Beasley-Murray <spn037-AT-abdn.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: working better


On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, deleuze-guattari-digest wrote:

> Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 16:23:23 -0500 (EST)
> From: Orpheus <cw_duff-AT-alcor.concordia.ca>
> Subject: ps
> 
> 	So I ask all members of the list: What is the purpose of this
> list?
> 	How does it work?
> 	How can it work better ?
> 	Should it?
> 
> 	etc.
> 
> 
> 	And thanks once again to Rooney for his precision and inquiries.

And thanks to you (and Paul B) for raising these questions.

My feeling, as I mentioned before, is that the list functions in part as a
symptom of D&G's reception and use.  This, at least, is how I am taking
the current debates.  I take the various participants to these debates to
personify (at times almost to caricature) specific receptions and uses of
D&G.  The problem is, perhaps, that people have become over-attached to
these positions?

No doubt effects generated by the internet's development in the last few
years are also significant.

I don't think that the seminar style Michael Current tried to institute
here would work.  We have always, however, been open to starting up
"spin-off" seminars on particular text, though these seldom manage to keep
up much momentum.

By contrast, on the list at present everything is a whirl, too fast for me
at least--and I suspect for many others.  Other lists have a limit on the
number of posts (eg, 3) any individual can send to the list in a 24-hour
period.  It would be very easy to implement this here, too.  I suspect
that slowing down the pace of things in this way might be an improvement. 

Any thoughts?

Take care

Jon

Jon Beasley-Murray
Hispanic Studies
University of Aberdeen
jbmurray-AT-abdn.ac.uk