(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?

[Daniel Petersen]

My second sentence should read:  'I though that "to recommend..."'  (i.e.
erase the second 'I' - a typo).

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Daniel Petersen <
danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20111216/270bf367/attachment-0004.htm>