 |
 |
Forwarded message: > From jjm1 Thu Mar 30 21:04:04 1995 > Subject: Re: REED communications > To: [log in to unmask] > Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 21:04:04 +0100 (BST) > From: "J.J.Mcgavin" <[log in to unmask]> > In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> from "Richard Rastall" at Mar 30, 95 09:54:33 am > X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] > Content-Type: text > Content-Length: 2222 > > Dear Reeders > > I'm assuming that by replying to Richard Rastall's letter, everyone on REED-L > will get a slice. > > Firstly, thanks to Richard for his info on waits which I immediately printed out > and will keep with all my stuff. I'll also look up his review. > > Secondly, I'd welcome (and the REED people at the conference welcomed) the idea > of regular REED meetings in the UK, though my experience of supervising a > postgrad on REED work and her eventual passage to REED editing on a more > professional basis suggested to me that REED editors do in fact share their > ideas with each other on a need to know basis. > > Thirdly, I'm glad Richard enjoyed the conference (which I was heavily involved > in) and was kind enough to say so in such a public way. I'd only want to > correct any impression his letter may have given that it turned into a REED > bashing session. The impression I got from the speakers was very much the > opposite of this (I will have to tone down one of the papers before > publication!). Richard may well have been talking only of criticism in ordinary > conference conversation, but what I heard was of the "constructive analysis" > type. Certainly there was contentious material and views and judgements of > REED's contribution differed, but on the whole, the criticism was only that > which any enterprise of the significance of REED attracts because of its very > centrality to our work. I don't want to overstate Richard's point, and leap to > defence where none is needed, but I guess I would want to take the > opportunity his letter provides to reassure other REEDers that the conference > was not a fifth column. My feeling is that few major enterprises of the scale > of REED and certainly not one so closely involved with a major shifting area of > interpretation like early modern studies would have come out of conference > scrutiny as well as REED did last weekend. > > Fourthly, and in typical anecdotal style, I wish to share with you the agreement > at Haddington that Patrick Skowgall should blow his "great pipe" through the > streets last thing at night and early in the morning. No wonder Scots are so > belligerent. > > Best wishes > > John J McGavin >