Vainland

[andrew at cee.hw.ac.uk]

MASCARO at humnet.ucla.edu writes:
> Warning: A longish post ensues---

> It is interesting to me that in a post titled *Vainland* Andrew
> includes among his closing thoughts this remark:

>  >I don't think the book is
> >without merit - it does, after all, provide a slice of list life which
> >though pretty trivial and of limited interest to most of us will be a
> >revelation to most non-Internet-savvy readers.

> I am not sure what you mean by *revelation* Andrew, but you may be
> staring into your own vanity mirror to expect the book to be of any
> interest to anyone else.

You must be pissing up your own parse tree to extract that meaning,
John. The choice of title for the post was more to do with vanity
presses than mirrors. I have no delusions of fame and fortune to be
obtained from Jules' publication, neither for him, Dale, me, you nor
indeed anyone else. But look at what I wrote again and see if you can
just take it at face value before you start looking round for double
meanings, Freudian slips, cabals, plots and devious self-deluding
fantasies. I said the book doesn't look like there is much in it to us
but to anyone who does not know what the Internet is (and I probably
ought to have added who has heard the usual horror stories about
stone-age discourse in a space-age medium) it may well come as a
`revelation' - exact word I meant to indicate exactly the effect I
expect. Surprise, not (necessarily) interest.

>  I am tickled by the thought that any *non-Internet-savvy readers*
> will even see Jules' book.

Well, so am I and I suspect not many will. But that neither qualifies
my previous statement nor ought it to qualify any judgement of the
book's merits. Imagine I were to suggest that cod liver oil is very
good for growing kids and you were to come back with the reply `I am
tickled by the thought that any growing kids will ever want to consume
cod-liver oil'. Are you surprised that I give up attempts to develop
an argument with you when your responses meet my statements at such
right-angles? Get your head sorted out before you post. (And while we
are here could you also try to insert a carriage return before your
lines exceed 80 characters. Failing to do so makes your posts very
difficult to read on a standard terminal or terminal emulation. Most
of your lines run to 90 or 100 characters so produce a full line plus
a scraggly bit which wraps round on the display).

> . . . As the first person Jules contacted w/ the revelation of his
> book, I think I should publically give my side of what ensued, as a
> few private correspondents suggested. . . .

Jules mentioned to me and Murthy that he was interested in turning
some of the archive into a book when he signed off over 3 months ago.
We both suggested that some listers would almost certainly object to
being included and might try to stop him using copyright law. He said
no more until he revealed hs intentions to John.

> Anyway, when Jules and Dale first got in touch with me, it was clear
> that they were operating on the assumption that people like me and
> the few others whose posts were fairly extensively quoted needed to
> give permission; other, shorter quotes were assumed to fall under
> FAIR USE doctrine.

Well, given that this is a small sample from an archive of 4 years
worth of mail notes I don't see why all of it cannot fall under fair
use. Still there you go. It will probably take a judge (with the aid
of several appeal courts) to decide. Copyright law is an ass.

> When I got my galley, I had a pretty complicated reaction,
> Naturally, it was embarrassing to see my stupid flame war w/ Jules
> reprinted when I had assumed it would just evaporate into the
> aether.  But despite what some may think when they see the book, I
> don't really care too much about that.  My intuition, which I
> strongly trust, screamed *scam* the instant I saw the galley.  Here
> was Jules still trying pathetically to milk his moribund connection
> to TRP, still pimping his wife as the salacious hook of the story,
> still claiming that he too would have been a great writer if only
> his principles hadn't gotten in the way (this last one, the trope of
> the principled man, one of Jules' major themes, is a particular hoot
> given the way he treats people whom he feels are no longer
> exploitable allies).  Believe it or not, it was out of a sense of
> loyalty to TP, but moreso out of my own personal scruples--which do
> not require justification any more than do Jules'--that I in all
> innocence replied to Jules that while I wished him luck, I would
> prefer not to be a part of his book. The innocence being that, since
> he'd asked me to give permission, I assumed that meant I was allowed
> to say *no*.  Guess again.  From that moment on, Jules no longer
> spoke to me, and I've been dealing with Dale ever since.  I think
> Dale is a decent guy trying to run a decent business.  I think he's
> shrewd and aggressive, as Jules described him in his post to me.  No
> crimes there. I also think Dale is honest enough.  But I think he's
> hitched his cart to the wrong star here.  Well, so be it; it's his
> business and I sincerely wish him well too.

I am sure Jules stopped speaking to you out of worry that further
communication with him might wind you up even further. I didn't notice
that you were so calm and collected in your negotiation with Jules and
Dale as you present it here, nor quite so innocent either. And it's
funny how you were asked if you wanted your writings to appear in the
book whereas I was asked if there was anything in the book I wanted to
correct, amend or qualify. Maybe you did your usual trick of listening
to what Jules and Dale said and hearing something else?

Also, what you fail to mention is that when you were first told about
the book, before seeing the proofs this is, you wrote some extremely
positive things about the whole idea and made it very clear that you
were more than happy for your writing to appear in it. Do you want to
supply the missing (private) email so we can know exactly what you
said?

  . . .

> In the galley I received, the front matter clearly includes a
> copyright notice extended to all who are therein quoted--I do not
> know if that little point will disappear from the final copy either.

Do you have any reason other than your own duplicitous example for
believing that Jules will perform any such volte face? Or is this just
a sneer to make yourself feel better? (and doubtless to wish Jules and
Dale well at the same time?).

> I acknowledge Andrew's comments about the analogy between the list
> and a public forum.  I think if Jules wanted to write his book and
> post it on the net for all to read, that that would be a fair reuse
> of the list's efforts in talking to him.

Whereas if he practises his trade and sells it to the general public
that's immoral? What the hell drugs was it did this to your brain,
John?

> I think that, editing, rearranging and repackaging--and here I am
> not as sanguine as Andrew that Jules has made only silent and proper
> editorial changes--is a ballsy move that may or may not turn out
> successfully.

I am tempted to read your parenthetic qualification as `Jules included
my flames instead of my brilliant inspired thoughts on Pynchon's
writing and he didn't even add a footnote to say "John's a nice guy
really, he keeps cats and dogs and kisses babies and boy that
intellect, a Rolls-Royce engine of a brain!"'.

> But I think that, given the apparent subterfuge and backhanded way
> with which the book was conceived and executed, that at the very
> least Jules and Dale would allow folks to opt out of it (especially,
> as I said yesterday in my only previous public comment on this, when
> they are also claiming that none of the posts are really essential
> to the book's *art*).  Backpedalling away as they've done, shifting
> grounds, claiming on one hand to be doing something good (showing
> the world how profound Jules interaction w/ the plist is) while
> using at best questionable methods to do it--these are the realities
> of the situation.  And they smack of sleazy exploitation, IMO.

Look, how can you expect to `opt out' of having your publicly
expressed opinions discussed? You posted a whole load of stuff and
Jules decided to write a commentary on it. Sure, you could object if
he reported you as saying stuff you did not say. You could object if
he wrote things in the commentary which were not true. But how can you
object to him taking your words, reproducing them verbatim and
providing his own interpretation to stand alongside them (it's
eminently clear what is reported dialogue and what is commentary so no
one is going to be misled). You do this to other people's posts every
day. You do it to Pynchon's writing. You probably do it with every
text down to the blurb on the back of corn flakes packets. What is
different about what Jules is doing?  Somewhere between free speech
and registered ownership of individual words and phrases there has to
be a happy medium. Being able to stop someone publishing discussion of
a debate which occurs in a public forum (you must be aware that this
is essentialy what would happen if your notes were surgically removed
from Jules book) is not my idea of the sort of intellectual climate I
want to live in. I hate to use the term in any Internet discourse but
I consider what you are trying to do to be censorship. And it stinks
even higher than the appeals to copyright.

> Folks who think objections to Jules' book are based narrowly on some
> misguided vanitas of the posters might want to think about the
> texture of this thing as it unfolds.

Very fishy. First off you presume that the book grabbed my eye like a
vanity mirror. Then you deny that your vanity was affronted when you
looked inside it. Sauce for the goose but not for the gander? But let
us indeed think about the texture of this thing as it unfolds. Lets
keep our noses tuned in for any more fishy smells too, ok?

> All this said, I wouldn't call in the KGB, er, I mean, FCC, to toss
> Jules and Dale in the dungeon where the torture never stops, If they
> put my little note in, I will at least have the chance to include my
> side.  Beyond that, hey, I believe in karma.

So do I, John, in this life if nto the next million. And I'm far more
worried about your karma than Jules' or Dales'.


Andrew Dinn
-----------
And though Earthliness forget you,
To the stilled Earth say:  I flow.
To the rushing water speak:  I am.