Vainland

[MASCARO at humnet.ucla.edu]

(Warning: even longer than the last post--so much to deal with!!)

>Date:          Fri, 25 Apr 97 11:34 BST
>From:          andrew at cee.hw.ac.uk
>To:            <MASCARO at HUMnet.UCLA.EDU>
>Cc:            pynchon-l at waste.org, jsiegel at mail.caribe.net.mx, dale at iam.com
>Subject:       Re: Vainland

I think it's really nice that andrew makes a special effort to cc his attack on me to Jules and 
Dale, just in case they're not--listening in--to see what juice their book makes us squirt.  
What the fuck is it w/ you Andrew?  I respectfully disagree w/ you and make a couple of 
remarks and you come and blast me again.  Why the fuck are you so intent on excoriating 
me for seeing things differently from you?  You can't really be trying to score points with 
Jules, can you?  Do you think maybe he'll share some of his extra-luscious insights with 
you now? For Christ's sake Andrew.  I only tried to tell what had happend to me.  I told it 
honestly.  Don't go implying that, like you and those you admire, having the ability to lie 
effortlessly in this medium makes everybody do so.  I thought we had attempted to learn 
how to talk to each other more civilly, Andrew,  Apparently not.  Some of your  claims 
need some response:

But first of all, a minor point, I would think, but of great import to you, let me apologize if 
I misread your meaning on the word *vanity.*t

(1)  > 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).

I am glad you mentioned this little quirk.  Some lister's messages do this to my machine 
too, though not all do.  [Hey, Paul Mackin, you lout--your posts do the same dastardly 
things to my screen that mine do to andrew's.  All the stern remarks he makes to me, Mr. 
Mackin, apply to you as well :)]  I have discovered that if I hit *reply* which is set to 
automatically copy the message I'm replying to--like one of that guy Mackin's--viola!! my 
screen reformats his post so it fits real nice.  Then, if I don't want to reply after all, I just 
hit, you guessed it, *delete*!  And it all turns out ok.  (That's why I never yelled at you 
Paul.)

(2) >> . . . 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.

Ooooh, you win Andrew.  All Jules said to me when he signed off was how much he'd 
enjoyed talking to me, what a great guy I was and other sincere compliments.  The day he 
posted me to tell me he'd written his book he said he was going to tell you and Murthy 
also.  when I contacted Murthy (wonder why I turned to him first?), he said all he'd gotten 
was a cc. of the message I'd been sent.  I assumed that went for you too (or maybe murthy 
said you's also gotten a cc).  Anyway, another earth shattering issue to resolve.


(3) >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. 

<snip>

>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?
>

Slimy innuedndo, Andrew.  The post I sent Jules asking to be removed from his book was 
very polite.  My initial enthusiasm when he contacted me had been a sincere thought that 
this guy who had so desperately needed to validate himself had managed to do 
so--remember this is the first time I am hearing from someone who at last contact was all 
full of the milk of human kindness to me.  I immediately asked to see the book and said 
absolutely NOTHING about my being in it.  As soon as I saw the galley, I asked to be 
removed.  Jules simply stopped talking to me at that point.  I am not sure what proivate 
exchanges between me and Dale or me and Jules  you have been given access to, but hey, 
fuckhead, just post them--you guys are all apparently good at snatching private mail--and 
we'll see who's playing sleazy games.

Goddammit andrew, you have me so mad.  One of my fears is that this little episode is 
going to mess up the list.  I realize as I type these incendiary words that this is all just 
playing into Jules' hands--a-and now it occurs to me, that maybe you have been cut in on 
the deal!!  Maybe this is part of the PR blitz,  hmmmmm? What's he giving you andrew, 2 
points off the net?  Why else would you attack me so nastily?

(4) >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?

Funny, I don't know what you're talking about here, Andrew  Dale said to me 
(paraphrasing, accurately): for most folks quoted FAIR USE will cover it; in your case, 
we're asking you because we like you, and because we have to.
Only after I demurred did the legal issue--evolve--to the point where I no longer had to be 
asked permission.


(5)>>  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?).

No, moron.  The point grows directly from the confusion surrounding this evolving state 
of ownership.  Dale frankly acknolwedged to me that all posts would be copyright their 
owners; the galley lists it.  But since the flap, Dale has held that the posts are purely public 
(I think his analogy is standing on a soapbox and shouting), so it's an obvious question as 
to whether he'll remove the copyright notice.  I think it's an emblem of how this is all 
being approached--i.e. as cynically as possible,

(6)
>> 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 it's the strain of reading anglicised English, Andrew, and following all you clever 
idioms.  I have no stand on the legal matter here.  I suspect a food lawyer could argue it 
either way, and so, money and power will out if this ever gets played out (another book, 
another author, another list, I am sure) in the big leagues.  On the matter of ethics, I feel 
strongly that Jules has sinned against a human community.  You clearly disagree.  Let us 
live with our disagreement on this, or is that asking too much of you? With respect to 
artistic integrity, it's a bale of fertilizer.  I wanted out because I think it's an egregiousl;y 
tasteless book.  But again, that's my private feeling.  I wouldn't go out and try to shoot 
Jules or Dale or confiscate it or anything.  If they make a million, fine.  It will still be a bad 
book in my eyes.  The note I have written for the book makes no attacks, no slams, no 
innuendoes (well, almost none).  I trust Jules will have the character to let it stand as is.  
Given that.  I am completely at peace with the whole affair (oh, with the extra little thing 
about not wanting private mail to be used.  How do stand on that, Andrew?  Is that just 
Jules plying his trade like a good craftsman?)

(7)
 >> 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!"'.

No, pisshead.  As I read the galleys (not checking them against the archives), posts have 
been rearranged; cut, pieced to together so that, for example, a conversation that took place 
over several days is made to flow seamlessly.  I think there is an argument here that such 
editorial manipulation changes fundamentally the *use* question, but as no barrister I, I 
ain't making that argument.

(8
)> 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.

Again with the heedless attacks.  As I see it, a guy writes a book and uses quotes from me.  
I wrote the quotes and the archive maintains them.  The guy sez:  hey, you're a swell fella 
and I wrote this book and you're in it!  Ain't that great?  By the way, I need your 
permission.  I say: no, I really don't want to be in it.  Guy sez: well, I don't need your 
permission.
At that point.  I stopped.  I haven't seen a lawyer.  I'm not trying to censor Jules, or even 
Andrew.  I wish I wasn't in it, but I don't think it'll mean a whole lot one way or t'other 
further on up the road.  For some reason, Andrew gets apoplectic at my position.  Why is 
this?
>

(9)
 >> 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'.

Why thank you, Andrew.  I didn't know you cared about me.  But think about what 
you're saying.  Are you really going over to the dark side, Luke?

john m