(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?

[Lee Berman]

>Daniel Petersen: However, I don't agree with Stockhoff's harsh belittling 
>of Quinn (yet I do find the latter frustrating in what does indeed seem to 
>be a rather obtuse attitude that could do with more nuance and the ability 
>to try to see from within others' worldviews - not least, Wolfe's own).
 
I really think you are missing something Daniel, though you would not be
alone in it. Isn't it possible to use the nuanced perception through which
we understand Gene Wolfe's work also to understand each other?
 
Many (including myself) have expressed dismay at the vitriol and extended
length of some of the argument/debates in here. But there is one person 
who has never expressed this dismay: Gerry Quinn. Is he really an object of
pity?
 
I don't think so. This is a very complex and multi-layered human being. It is
clear he is not content to discuss Wolfe in a dry, dispassionate, purely
intellectual manner. His posts are designed to elicit emotional responses as 
well. And who can deny that he is adept at doing so? Not an object of pity at
all. Perhaps admiration of a skilled social operator at work is the more 
appropriate sentiment.

This is not to suggest that those who engage with Gerry are helpless, mindless
puppets under his control. When David, James, I or others debate with Gerry we
understand, at some level, that he needs emotional content to be a part of
his discourse, and we provide it.
 
The calls for censure of the combatants are surely valid and express the true
feelings of the callers. But shouldn't they be tempered with a recognition of
human diversity? A knowledge that different people have different emotional 
needs which shouldn't be summarily dismissed in the interest of dispassionate
sameness.