Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Hamlet's Mill review

Expand Messages
  • Chris
    ... Okay. ... Now you are arguing my point for me. What you originally wrote and what you write in your reply are at variance with one another. That was point
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 18, 2003
      >>
      >> Thanks for posting again. I had meant to reply to your earlier post but
      >> thought I'd wait for Barry or Siva to comment. In the absence, I forgot
      >> about it. Sorry, I had wanted to say thanks for a thoughtful post. I
      >> especially liked your idea about the "evil" feel of retrograde.
      >
      > I was trying to explain the "logic" or belief behind astrology. It is
      > not 'my idea.'

      Okay.
      >
      > Again, I
      >> thought that might be something Siva was going to pick up on.
      >>
      >> At any rate, I think you and I at least are on the same page as
      > regards this
      >> matter.
      >>
      >>>
      >>> I wrote a letter to Dr. von Dechend via her publisher which she
      >>> received in Germany. She had been a graduate student under Prof. de
      >>> Santillana and Hamlet's Mill was her graduate thesis. He was her
      >>> thesis advisor but most of the book was her work, not his, as she
      >>> told me.
      >>
      >> This I doubt: Santillana most likely would not have been so
      > defensive of it
      >> if so (if you'll allow a pet psychoanalysis). In his response to
      > the New
      >> York Times review, I would have to say he was down right angry at the
      >> review. This does not sound like the reaction of a seasoned
      > professor over
      >> someone else's work.
      >
      > Why not? She was his graduate student; he would have supported her
      > anyway; he collaborated with her in writing the book and took a lot of
      > the credit by having his name prominently involved. What she actually
      > said was that the voluminous footnotes and endnotes were almost
      > entirely hers. The main ideas were probably kicked around and settled
      > upon by both of them. Professors often have an idea that they don't
      > have time to fully explore themselves so they let a graduate student
      > run with it on a thesis. He said in the preface that he was "the
      > senior if less-deserving author" of the book. Look it up.
      > Beyond that I don't know anything about what the NY Times had to say
      > or his reaction. But it is not difficult for me to imagine that they
      > were short-sighted and he indignant. The book is not easy to follow
      > either, which I have said in my paper. One can get bogged down in the
      > literary references and lose sight of the theme. And then some of the
      > most important information, like the nature of the Star of Bethlehem,
      > is just glossed over in a sentence or two, as though it must be
      > obvious to the most casual observer.

      Now you are arguing my point for me. What you originally wrote and what you
      write in your reply are at variance with one another.

      That was point entirely: the book was a collaboration, not "mostly his" or
      "mostly hers". In any case, I assume we are saying the same thing at this
      point.


      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.