DonBradley wrote:Hi Jersey Gal,
As editor of The FARMS Review, DCP is the most visible and prominent FARMS writer. So, yes, he comes to symbolize, and epitomize, FARMS as a whole.
However, I think there are deeper, more specific reasons for his service as a human lightning rod.
First, he is a very effective rhetorician. While Dr. Peterson is certainly capable of, and does, academic scholarship, he is often, online and among friends such as readers of the FARMS Review, not in academic mode, but in more of a light-hearted debate mode. He positively excels at this. He can win conisderable rhetorical ground without appealing to evidence at all, by virtue of his razor sharp wit. This delights and entertains most of his fellow believers, but maddens many critics. Critics want their arguments taken seriously and weighed on their merits. But DCP often doesn't grant them this. He tends to not spend his time on Internet boards discussing detailed evidence or the logical structure of arguments. Rather, he whimsically plays with his discussion "opponents," and, as the superior rhetorician, usually makes their position look foolish or laughable (at least to those who share his basic belief premises).
Second, while Dr. Peterson intends his humorous responses to be "piquant"--pleasingly pungent or provocative, they often come across to critics as noxiously and malevolently pungent and provocative. In face-to-face discussion, everything about Daniel Peterson communicates amiability and emotional lightness. But shorn of these nonverbals, his jokes come across to many who don't know him, and are the butt of said jokes, as personally dismissive, angry, and even bellicose.
I've not made a secret of my personal distaste for rhetoric that is so easily misunderstood, and therefore inadvertantly inflammatory. But I disdain the tendency to defame Professor Peterson and mock him in the most crass of ways. While I, personally, would prefer to see Dr. Peterson tone down and clarify some of his writing, I think it is very misguided to attack him as though he were Mephistopheles. At best, he's a mischievous imp. ;)
Dr. Peterson's critics take his rhetoric far more seriously than he does. A useful metaphor for understanding his piquant humor was provided by his own self-description. Daniel Peterson has, if I remember right, acknowledged having grown up as a frequent class clown. While he was no doubt a high-performing student, he was also a cut-up. And he still is. While an erudite scholar in his own right, he frequently plays the class clown to those who would act as his critical "teachers."
The stakes are now higher than in class, and more intense feelings are involved--so, to repeat, I'd prefer that he use greater circumspection in his writing. But I think those who take him with such godawful seriousness are badly misguided. This guy isn't Josef Goebbels, folks. He's Hugh Nibley meets Fletch.
Don
He tends to avoid long and involved discussions, and looks for the easy marks. He likes to look for the unexamined assumptions that everyone has, but more particularly those who lack humility. He also has a wonderful economy of words and wit that I enjoy, even when I'm on the receiving end. He just makes me laugh and try harder.