Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?

Sergei SOLOVIEV · 16 Dec 2011, 15:47 · 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: soloviev at irit.fr (Sergei SOLOVIEV)
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:47:16 +0100
Subject: (urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?
In-Reply-To: <CAGB0RZ43M2zzWLtPXv8k863HtA35iuJ_A5Fq6X0QZH+QCsub4w at mail.gmail.com>
References: <SNT123-W366C39B41C72D722A44925CFA00 at phx.gbl>	<6B52FE0D6CA84D76A71660A4CA79C92D@Rover>
	<CAGB0RZ43M2zzWLtPXv8k863HtA35iuJ_A5Fq6X0QZH+QCsub4w at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EEB6804.6080903 at irit.fr>

Sergei Soloviev wrote:

as I already tried to make a point, it is not (to my mind) the 
opposition between
"materialist" and "spiritualist" view, it is much more serious opposition
within religious approach - between "false" and "true" miracles. I often
feel that Gerry is very critical to bold theories of others because he
wants to distinguish between these - to find "true message". A very
critical view of "ready made" miracles is (to give an example) in
a brilliant way expressed by G. K. Chesterton in his Father Brown stories.
I often agree with Gerry because I think that Wolfe's stories are subtle
and deep enough to look for this message, and deserve careful reading
(without jumping to far reaching conclusions) more than the role of 
starting point
for promoting theories based on few details out of context.

I should confess also that I am rather scandalized by accusations 
addressed to
Gerry in neglecting the text - I think the accusers are more guilty in that.

regards

S.

Daniel Petersen wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com 
> <mailto: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 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

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