Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?

Daniel Petersen · 16 Dec 2011, 14:56 · 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 14:56:01 +0000
Subject: (urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?
In-Reply-To: <6B52FE0D6CA84D76A71660A4CA79C92D@Rover>
References: <SNT123-W366C39B41C72D722A44925CFA00 at phx.gbl>
	<6B52FE0D6CA84D76A71660A4CA79C92D@Rover>
Message-ID: <CAGB0RZ43M2zzWLtPXv8k863HtA35iuJ_A5Fq6X0QZH+QCsub4w at mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:

>
> This is not the first time you [Lee Berman] have accused me of the kind of
> machinations you indulge in.
>

I'd actually have to agree with Gerry here.

>
> 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?
>

Well, first of all, as to your rhetorical question, it doesn't at all
follow from the fact that your 'observations' evoke resentment that this is
due to the strength or quality of your observations.  It could be precisely
the fact that they are 'poor' (in any of a number of senses) that is
incurring the annoyance and resentment of others.  You strike me as perhaps
fancying yourself as a bit of a positivist logician or something?  But I
find your logic often to be very poor or confused (or merely
ill-communicated?) like this.  Indeed, you seem to often speak from a more
intuitive sort of place whilst trying to always break down any kind of
intuitive interpretation of Wolfe.  A (perceived) inconsistency like this
is what I personally find at first baffling and then annoying in your
comments.  When you are rather obstinately persistent in this (perceived)
inconsistency, I am tempted to be resentful.  You see how there are more
options for explaining resentment in response to you than the single one
you seem to blithely recommend as the only or best one?

As to questioning others' worldviews as ineffectively interpreting Wolfe:
 go for it.  Of course.  But I don't perceive you as really accepting
Wolfe's own worldview (as being his own).  Why do you try to interpret a
Catholic writer on a strictly materialist basis?  If you want to *argue
with* his worldview, great.  But to try to represent him as saying
something other than he himself professes to believe (in the fiction, it
seems to me, as well as outside it), seems disingenuous to say the least.
 I even find a materialistic take on Wolfe fascinating and invaluable.  But
the way you go about it often seems wrongheaded to me.

> 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.
> - Gerry Quinn
>
>

Yes, rigour in literary criticism is good.  Please use more in your own.
 Thanks,

DOJP
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111216/f7c5668c/attachment-0001.htm>

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