|
Glen Ropella wrote:
Having said all that, I'd like to make a suggestion about the list now that the reins have been handed over. (Thanks for running the list, Tim.) Your basic point, Calvin, should be heard, especially by Judith, who is the custodian of her father's work. My suggestion, Judith, would be to continue to work to get your father's unpublished or out of print works in print. And disseminate his work as widely as you can. However, I beg you not to _color_ his work with too much of your own explananda or creativity. When you publish his work, try to publish only his work. Thank you, Glen, for your concern for the purity of Robert Rosen's
ouvre. How sweet of you to reiterate the same advice you sent me privately some
weeks ago. Your kindness, taking time out of your life to do
so, twice, is quite awe-inspiring. However, please allow me to
reassure you (again) that you do not need to concern yourself on any of these
issues: The original work will continue to be available to people, unbowdlerized
by anyone, and should any list subscriber or non-list-subscriber wish
to read Robert Rosen's own words in their entirety and unexpurgated, they will
have ample opportunity to do so-- more and more in fact, as time goes on. That
will, in and of itself, protect the integrity of his work (and no one cares more
than I do about such protections-- which is one of your complaints).
Secondly, any further development I happen to do based on my
father's work will have MY name on it and will be identified as such. I have
already done this on a number of occasions. However, I intend to manage my
father's estate as I know he would want it managed and, forgive me for saying
so, you have only a cursory understanding of what his work was
about, never mind any knowledge of what he would prefer
to have done with his creative estate.
GR: There are two reasons for this. One is that it is hard to critically evaluate something developed by a community of people unless there is something like a peer-review process or "open battlefield" in which competing ideas can co-exist. If you editorialize your father's work as you publish it, then it will hinder others' efforts to build on it. Even if I were to begin editorializing his work, this is
nonsense. You (and everybody else) have absolute freedom to critically
evaluate his work, which was not developed by committee and much of which is
still available today, easily and inexpensively. However, the comment on
his writing style and its effect, which you referred to in this passage
from your post: "Part of this is innocent... his writings, using a
prosaic style, appeal to people who don't have the skills to critically evaluate
what they read." I must say, I think you are being too hard on yourself.
Surely you are capable of critically evaluating at least some of what
you read?
Furthermore, I detect a wee bit of inconsistency in your various
suggestions. How does a peer-review process evaluate work created by a
committee any better than work by a single person? Incidentally, the phrase
"peer review" suggests that, in order to be fairly reviewed, it would be
possible to find peers-- people who are both capable
and worthy of reviewing. I believe it should, in theory, be quite
possible to do this. However, the people recruited by most mainstream
publications to review the work of people like my father are often not
peers.
On the other hand, it baffles me how your idea of an
open battlefield where different ideas can coexist fits in with your
entreaties about maintaining the purity of Robert Rosen's ideas.
GR:The other is that you will be doing yourself a disservice. Your contribution to the world deserves its own chance to survive and propagate without the baggage of your father's biological/mathematical fetish. Once again, thank you for your kindness in stating this argument a
second time (although I understood you perfectly the first time around).
However, on this subject, sadly, the damage is already done: My own work,
including my fiction, is inextricably entwined with Robert Rosen's as are my
brainwaves. Frankly, I have no desire for it to be otherwise, which is lucky for
me (it would be impossible). In any case, we all have our crosses to bear,
don't we? Don't you worry about mine.
GR: So, specifically, when you post RR's work to this list, don't insert your own explananda. Just faithfully publish it. Then if you want to comment on it, comment as Judith Rosen, not as the publisher of RR's work. I understand that's a hard line to walk. But, if you succeed, everyone (fans and detractors alike) will appreciate it. I will certainly do as I was planning to do, before this.
However, my work at translation or explanation will continue, and I
make no apologies to you or anyone else for that-- quite the contrary. If people
weren't having trouble understanding the work, they wouldn't need any other
source material but the originals.
So, allow me to thank you for your concern, but it is misplaced.
There is no need to reiterate a third time; I understand you
perfectly.
Slainte,
Judith Rosen
|