Moksha wrote:Kerry Shirts wrote up a really impressive paper on the Tree and sent me a copy last year since he knew I had an interest in symbolism. Kerry's paper would make a really good article for the Interpreter. Even his list of sources was impressive.
DCP wrote:Among other things, it would be awfully hard to work with somebody who repeatedly slanders us and mischaracterizes us the way Kerry does.
I'm honestly unaware of anything that any of us ever did to hurt him, but he continually says really nasty, unjust, and untrue things about us. I can't fathom why he feels the need to do that. It's genuinely strange. And it saddens me very much.
ClintonKing wrote:It sounds like Kerry Shirts would be opposed to having his paper appear in Interpreter.
DCP wrote:I expect that he would. Very strongly.
Kiwi57 wrote:You should probably stop exploiting Dan's blog for advertising purposes.
Moksha wrote:I think of it as assisting the Interpreter with a very scholarly article which would be a feather in its cap.
Whoa! This is a stunning admission! Critics for well over a decade have pointed out that the old FARMS articles were not "scholarly" because they were written by "amateurs." Kevin Graham was one of the people who frequently leveled that particular criticism. One of the rebuttals to this was the idea that all scholarship is good, so long as it is sound and well-reasoned, and yet look at what Peterson is saying: "more or less been written by Kerry." Meaning, of course, that the editors exercised a heavy hand in the revision process. Lots of former FARMS authors have complained about "meddling" in their work, and now, at last, we get DCP himself admitting that this was indeed the approach they used. One has to assume that this same thing still goes on at "Interpreter," and, in fact, it may have something to do with the new "restructuring" that has occurred with respect to Allen Wyatt's role.DCP wrote:We once published an article in the FARMS Review that had more or less been written by Kerry.
I'm not eager to repeat that experience.
And I have to admit: it's really hard to ignore Peterson's closing remark: "I'm not eager to repeat that experience." Why would he say this? Is it because he thought Kerry was rude or personally unpleasant? (I find that quite impossible to believe. Kerry will stand up for himself and push back when he knows something is wrong, but I've never seen any signs that he is in any way a mean or unpleasant person.) So, then, I guess it means that he thought that Kerry was an "unscholarly" loser? The experience was "not fun" because they had to do too much of the work? Or is it that Kerry wasn't sufficiently "Mopologetic"--in line with what Hauglid has said--and he was resistant to going into full-on "attack dog" mode?
In any event, this may be the very first time that Dr. Peterson has publicly admitted that he regrets having published an article in the FROB. Very, very interesting.