Regarding "personal relationships" with cultural authors, all I can offer is Neal Stephenson's Why I Am A Bad Correspondent, which explains better than I ever could:
http://web.mac.com/nealstephenson/Neal_Stephensons_Site/Bad_...
By the way, I also like Lynch. And I bet you also like Stephenson. I wonder if there's some ultra-narrow cultural niche we all fit into ; )
This behavior is not different in quality, though, just in quantity. I think that when you call yourself a "fan" and spend your time "wondering about the intersection between PG's fans and Stephenson's fans", you are expressing the same kind of devotion shown by the author.
So yes, there is a gap between you and the author. But it is a relative one. And I happen to think it is funny to see people judging someone else's behavior even when they show the same behavior. It's no different than pill-happy moms worried about their kids using drugs, claiming there is a huge difference between prescription drugs and whatever-kids-take-these-days.
I think it's a qualitative difference, but I guess I can't prove it. However, I didn't want to come across as judgemental so I apologise for that.
Sigh, I never know what to do now. Do I go and correct my original comment, and thus rewrite history, and make you look silly, correcting something that isn't wrong? Or maybe correct it and leave an "update:" notice, which looks presumptive - as if anyone could give a shit about my edits. Or I could just leave it alone, wrong as it is, and take my lumps - I should have been right the first time.
I choose the last option. I wonder how others think about such things.
Correcting typos, refining your point - that's what "edit" is for. But going back and changing things so you were right smacks of rewriting history and, to me, is against the unwritten rules.
Interface
The Cobweb
I actually like these better than all his single-authorships. They do feel lighter.