Well, I personally was just added to this list, and I would
like to see it continue, if even only for an occasional question or
update posting by some member.
 
James A. Wilderotter II
Project Assistant
Georgetown Center for Text and Technology
Academic Computing Center
Reiss Science Building, Room 238
Georgetown University
Washington, DC 20057
 
Tel. (202) 687-6096
BITNET: wilder@guvax
Internet: edu%"[log in to unmask]"
 
**************************************************************
 
I just joined this list a couple of months ago and have been disappointed
by its complete lack of activity.  I vote against shutting it down completely,
largely because I have watched a couple of other inactive lists become active
for at least short periods of time, but also because I would hate to miss the
discussions that could occur.
 
Mary Elaine Califf
Programmer
Baylor University
califfma@baylor or
[log in to unmask]
 
***********************************************************
 
Dear Abigail, and REED-L;
 
Certainly I am growing aware of the trials and tribulations of priming
the conversational pump via electronic mail, and I definitely know the
disappointment of a day without contributions from the membership.
We're fighting a common enemy, I think; ENGLISH, SHAKSPER, and REED-L
all face the threat of silence to a greater or lesser extent, and all
for similar reasons: members are much more willing to join a discussion
already in progress than to initiate one themselves; members are reluctant
to post untried ideas at the risk of appearing foolish; members are also
reluctant to post polished ideas because getting them into print is much
more rewarding in the current scheme of things.  The third reason cannot
be easily dispelled, but I persist in hoping that the first two can.
 
It's quite true that members rarely bail out of a list because it has
too *few* postings; au contraire, the lists which inundate members with
nonsense are those which quickly lose the interest of scholars.  HUMANIST
faced silences in its early history too, but ultimately had to develop a
format to deal with an excessive number of contributions each day.  This
should give hope to lists in the pure humanities, which draw from a field
which does not require computer literacy: electronic mail is a growing
trend, and we are still just slightly ahead of our time.  Students of
Renaissance Drama are far more likely to be computer literate than their
professors, and this bodes well for the future.
 
I am very reluctant to recommend an automatic list, because I doubt that
conversation would increase as a result.  If that's the sole alternative to
complete dissolution, then by all means make REED-L automatic!  But perhaps
some purpose beyond conversation must be found to break the ice, and allow
the water to flow with a little less pumping.  Some surprisingly simple
approaches have generated continuing discussion on SHAKSPER, such as
encouraging members to contribute to a group project, like a bibliography,
directory, or index.  Perhaps we need to be reminded what REED is up to,
and what REED-L has to offer us.  Perhaps we need to know a little more
about each other, our backgrounds and interests.  In general, scholars
require some rewards beyond conversation simply to become involved.
 
It would indeed be a tragedy if REED-L disappeared so soon.  Perhaps it
needs to summon greater support from the few other humanities seminars on
Bitnet: ANSAXNET, ENGLISH, FICINO, and SHAKSPER, for example.   Two of these
have already arranged formal cooperation, and three are planning a mutual
Bitnet project.  Announcements on these lists might well attract new members
and new ideas.  Resuscitating discussion on REED-L would require some
effort and planning, and I would certainly understand if Abigail has more
pressing responsibilities.  Perhaps cooperatively we can share the inevitable
task of priming the pump, though, and find our common interests and the
resources REED-L offers which can be of most use to us.
 
Bitnet discussion groups endorsed by the CRRS, REED, and SAA should be
a powerful incentive to scholars in our field to learn the basic skills
of email, and will eventually lead to better scholarly communications and
a stronger sense of worldwide scholarly community.  The steps forward are
difficult and occasionally unrewarding, but far better than steps backward.
 
I would be happy to assist the priming of the REED-L pump in whatever ways
possible, and offer the cooperation of SHAKSPER in whatever ways Abigail
deems appropriate.
                                  Ken Steele
                                  Editor, SHAKSPER
                                  University of Toronto
 
                                  <[log in to unmask]>
                                   or <KSTEELE@utorepas>
 
******************************************************************
 
It may be too early to be pessimistic.  I subscribe to several discussion
groups and the traffic will vary from heavy to none.  It is hard to
predict.  I would suggest that reed-l be put on automatic for two
years, and at the end of that period be evaluated for viability.
 
Charles Neuringer
 
************************************************************************
 
I hope that Reed-l will not shut down, although it has been inactive.  Of
course, activity is the result of the actions of the members of the list,
so I suppose that means we "collectively" should do something.  At one
point someone (Abigail?) asked about dancing in churches, etc., in the
medieval period.  I found some references to dancing in the liturgy in
secondary lit. and would be interested what others know about this.  Any
takers/contributors/etc.?
Grover Zinn
Oberlin College
FZINN@OBERLIN