(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?

[Daniel Petersen]

Ah, Lee, I kind of sympathise sometimes with some of the things you seem to
be saying on this list, but mostly I don't understand you very well and
your comments directed to me here are of that latter variety.  I thought I
that 'to use the nuanced perception through which we understand Gene
Wolfe's work also to understand each other' was precisely what I was
recommending.

I simply don't understand you very well, Lee, and Quinn I feel I do
understand to some degree but find his seeming obstinacy about seeing the
possible value in certain other interpretations than his own (literary vs.
literal is what I'd call it - Quinn being literal) to be rather onerous.  I
suppose to follow my own stated values here I need to try see these matters
from within each of your own (world)views to what degree I can.  I just
want Quinn to do the same rather than being what seems to me unnecessarily
obtuse and dismissive about some of the other theories.

I don't really know what you're talking about with Quinn being an 'object
of pity' and all that.  Nor do I think my comments (nor those calling for
'censure) betrayed that I was (they were) 'missing something', especially
not 'a recognition of human diversity'.  I am (they are) calling for just
such recognition and celebration of human diversity - belligerence and
'over-stubbornness' do not facilitate this.

-DOJP

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> >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.
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111216/83548b41/attachment-0004.htm>