Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?

Daniel Petersen · 16 Dec 2011, 14:35 · from 2011-December.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com (Daniel Petersen)
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:35:53 +0000
Subject: (urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?
In-Reply-To: <CAGB0RZ53VwcCy8i5fS89gW3E2LxER0R7X89K1UBDAgnmkMdgMA at mail.gmail.com>
References: <SNT123-W366C39B41C72D722A44925CFA00 at phx.gbl>
	<CAGB0RZ53VwcCy8i5fS89gW3E2LxER0R7X89K1UBDAgnmkMdgMA at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGB0RZ4Ryog=74BABPOQct67p5n9PtRuRvH2jDFjYjoV3By-ag at mail.gmail.com>

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.htm>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net