Re: Hamlet's Mill review
>> 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.'
>Now you are arguing my point for me. What you originally wrote and what you
> 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
>>> 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.
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