From what you told us, the Gundling novel did a much better job at showing that Gundling could have taken a different road at certain points without ignoring the other side of the coin, i.e. FW deciding to do what he did.
So very much. And in theory, you'd think a novel would be more partisan and one sided than a non fiction biography. Btw, having read a bit further, Göse in the "FW and science" also does this: "While FW's attitude towards non-theological academics has been decried as disgusting in the past, it wasn't as bad as that. Proof: the initial appointment of Gundling as the President of the Academy wasn't the mockery it has always been described as. As is demonstrated by the fact Gundling actually put a lot of work into the job, and by the fact Gundling pre FW had a good reputation as a scholar. I'm footnoting Martin Sabrow's biography as source here."
Self: Göse, you're doing it again. This is so not what Sabrow says re: FW's attitude towards academics. That Gundling actually took the job seriously and worked hard in it was on Gundling, not FW. Sabrow even explicitly SAYS it was part of Gundling's effort to build himself an FW free space in his life.
How is "he could have run away" a justification for anything?
It's the old "Why does this abused wife not leave her abusive husband?" rationale, isn't it?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-13 06:25 am (UTC)So very much. And in theory, you'd think a novel would be more partisan and one sided than a non fiction biography. Btw, having read a bit further, Göse in the "FW and science" also does this: "While FW's attitude towards non-theological academics has been decried as disgusting in the past, it wasn't as bad as that. Proof: the initial appointment of Gundling as the President of the Academy wasn't the mockery it has always been described as. As is demonstrated by the fact Gundling actually put a lot of work into the job, and by the fact Gundling pre FW had a good reputation as a scholar. I'm footnoting Martin Sabrow's biography as source here."
Self: Göse, you're doing it again. This is so not what Sabrow says re: FW's attitude towards academics. That Gundling actually took the job seriously and worked hard in it was on Gundling, not FW. Sabrow even explicitly SAYS it was part of Gundling's effort to build himself an FW free space in his life.
How is "he could have run away" a justification for anything?
It's the old "Why does this abused wife not leave her abusive husband?" rationale, isn't it?