On-line interview with ?

[Tom Stanton]

MASCARO at humnet.ucla.edu wrote:
> 
> I don't know if T. Stanton thinks he agrees with me or if he thinks he's  correcting
> me, but I guess I wasn't clear in my post.  I agree copmpletely w/ what you say
> about drugs and the creative process.  My point is, why mention it all, unless it is in
> some way to diminish the creative process, which is what I feel Siegal tries to do to
> P.'s work w/ repeated digressions into P,'s alleged drug use.  I think that is very
> uncool.

At the risk of offending Jules, I think he knows exactly what he's
doing. I'm
just not offended by his bringing it up because it *is* central to the
author,
the Puritanism, guilt, liberation, and so on. I am uncomfortable that
there is
a bit too much inside personal info, and agree with an earlier post that
we have
a chance to ask the loftier questions (Krafft and Vaska have asked great
ones).
The most interesting & revealing thing Chrissie has disclosed is the
comic panel
technique. Not the coffee can, drugs, kookiness, etc. (but I do like
MacThrifty
Pynchon & the thread on royalties vs. survival--fun stuff). 

We just may be having the first chance to explore a new form of
unauthorized 
biography. Don't be too angry with Jules & Chrissie, but don't be too
forgiving 
either. This is a guilty pleasure & so far everyone is culpable. So lets
see what 
comes of Krafft & Vaska's questions...

Tom Stanton