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