In response to David Hunt's article "<a href="/cgi/to.cgi?t=1110">a
review of 'Virtualities: Body Fictions'</a>" and the subsequent <a
href="/cgi/to.cgi?t=1128">reply from Margaret Morse</a>, yael kanarek wrote:

I have read the threads regarding Hunt's review, Morse's response and
few other comments in regard to the "review." While I can easily
understand why Morse is upset at Hunt's spitting, I think that Morse
cocktailing Hunt's attitude with RHIZOME is out of place.

RHIZOME is an open platform for the exchange of ideas. Obviously, this
openess has its benefits and ditches. The quality of the interaction
depends on the integrity of the players.

robbin murphy added:

Thank you Yael. I was about to post my usual screed against the
priviledges of the corporate edutainment industry and the coming of the
digital diploma mills when your post reeled me in to a more thoughtful
analysis.

I've been critical of RHIZOME and its intent in the past but only
because I care about it and I think (hope) Rachel, Alex and Mark realize
that. It's not nettime and it's not an academic forum. It's a bar for
the rest of us.

I'd like to know more about Mr. Hunt so I can form an opinion–there
does seem to be more to his story. I thought his review was negative but
not to the point of exclusion. And Prof. Morse did a very good job of
defending her view. What's the problem here? I'm learning something. Am
I not worth the effort? I AM RHIZOME….

doakes wrote:

I allow that a person has a right to respond to a criticism, which Morse
does at great length. However, I find it bizarre that the diatribe
trails off into a discussion of the validation of criticism per se, on
the internet and of RHIZOME in particular. I'm afraid that the world is
full of opinions of work and lectures (of which many readers will not
have first hand experience), what I am surprised at is that Margaret
Morse seems surprised of this. I would have thought that is the way of
the world. I whole heartedly support her right to respond as much as I
support anybody's right to have an opinion as well. This is not the
future of the net or of this list. This is the time old tradition of art
history and the history of visual culture.

Robert Simon also replied:

David Hunt wrote an extremely negative review of Margaret Morse's
presentation, and she in turn feels RHIZOME was amiss in publishing this
review.

I'm a bit confused. Academic journals as well as "high-brow" general
readership publications such as the New York Review of Books and the TLS
as well as many art-scene magazines quite commonly publish extremely,
sometimes wildly negative reviews. People often cry foul and generally
have an opportunity to respond to the reviews via letters to the editor.
Interested readers can examine all of this, look into other relevant
materials, and decide for themselves what's what.

On one level it all seems to be pretty mundane stuff. A harsh review is
written, the person reviewed objects strenuously and offers a response.
I just don't see how this really differs from standard print-world
workings. (In another context I recently looked at some of the arguments
a few years ago surrounding the publication of new editions of Joyce's
Ulysses: wow! that really really got nasty, but I don't recall anyone
seriously saying that the various venues where the arguments appeared
shouldn't have published some or all of these arguments.)

I am also more than a bit dismayed that M. Morse "played the feminist
card," suggesting that some gender bias inspired or informed D. Hunt's
review. Is this to say that a harsh review by a man of a woman's work is
necessarily "ad feminam" and somehow silencing? How has M. Morse been
silenced? I appreciated much of M. Morse's posting–the clarity and
complexity of her summaries were the best ways possible to cast doubt on
D. Hunt's account–but this "ad feminam" argument really was misplaced,
and bordered on demagogy. Moreover, I re-read D. Hunt's review quite
carefully, and found no evidence of gender bias.

What's important here is that various positions and claims have been
made available on RHIZOME, and the list readers can decide things for
themselves. They can take part in the discussion in ways not possible in
the context of print-media publications.

hunger@loom.net wrote:

locked away in my funny little country town in deep australia, for the
first time with a bit of time to read the posts more fully on the
various lists i am on, i must say that i find the morse/hunt dialogue
quite interesting.

I have gone back and searched the RHIZOME CONTENTBASE to read the actual
review again, as i didn't pay much attention to it at first, and have
read it in the context of morse's reply.

I agree that Hunt's review doesn't obey the rules of established
academic and literary criticism. As morse puts it: "should there be
sites where rules established in print still prevail? These rules
include the goal of fairly presenting the ideas and performance in
question and the practice of avoiding ad hominum argument."

However I still think it presents the response of one member of the
audience fairly, and as such is valid. And is valid to have put on
RHIZOME, which doesn't seem to set itself up to be an academic style
publishing venture on the web (i liked robbin murphy's description of
the list as a bar).

Natasha Vita More also wrote:

Thank you Margaret Morse for your distinct response to Hunt's review.

The enunciations you all have posted on this thread have been a
refreshing change from the "announcement" of events. While announcements
are informative and newsworthy, so is stretching of our mental muscle in
discussing timely issues. If we could have more conversations of this
kind here or elsewhere, I'd welcome it.