<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=severiansola@hotmail.com
href="mailto:severiansola@hotmail.com">Lee Berman</A> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV><BR>> > Daniel Petersen: However, I don't agree with Stockhoff's
harsh belittling <BR>> > of Quinn (yet I do find the latter frustrating in
what does indeed seem to <BR>> > be a rather obtuse attitude that could do
with more nuance and the ability <BR>> > to try to see from within others'
worldviews - not least, Wolfe's own).<BR> <BR>> Many (including myself)
have expressed dismay at the vitriol and extended<BR>> length of some of the
argument/debates in here. But there is one person <BR>> who has never
expressed this dismay: Gerry Quinn. Is he really an object of<BR>>
pity?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The fox expressed dismay when the scorpion stung him halfway across the
river. A wiser fox would have recognised the scorpion for what he was and
treated him with wariness, thus removing the cause for dismay.</DIV>
<DIV><BR> <BR>> I don't think so. This is a very complex and
multi-layered human being. It is<BR>> clear he is not content to discuss
Wolfe in a dry, dispassionate, purely<BR>> intellectual manner. His posts are
designed to elicit emotional responses as <BR>> well. And who can deny that
he is adept at doing so? Not an object of pity at<BR>> all. Perhaps
admiration of a skilled social operator at work is the more <BR>> appropriate
sentiment.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This is not the first time you have accused me of the kind of machinations
you indulge in.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>With regard to Daniel’s point: I do attempt to see the worldviews of
others, and I question elements of those worldviews, or the analyses based on
those worldviews, that seem to me ineffective with regard understanding
Wolfe. If my understanding of these worldviews were so poor, would my
observations incur so much resentment?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I am not proposing that absolute rigour is a necessary or useful virtue in
literary criticism, but I do see arguments posted that seem to me so devoid of
rigour as to constitute little more than noise. Lee would, I think, prefer
if the list resembled a workshop overseen by Forlesen’s bosses, where ‘creating
creativity’ is the only activity and the only result, and is praised to the
heavens.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- Gerry Quinn</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>