more on fraud on the internet

[Peter Giordano]

I'm going to respond to a few of of jester's comments clipped from his much
longer message (which is available in the archive)

He said:
>Sure, it could have been a great research tool -- and still can be if the
>sources are verified, right Peter? :)  But I think the vast majority of us
>who are immersed in cyberculture have come to realize that the internet is
>not the great Information Age it's made out to be, and not even the
>MIS-Information age critics like to call it... but it is the chief tool of
>our budding INTERACTIVE age -- it's the first time in human history that
>just about anyone can interact with the world, publish letters, creative
>writing, editorials of all kinds [...]
I say:
1) Yeah, I use the internet for a lot of research - Who wouldn't
2) I'm not sure your "INTERACTIVE AGE scenario hold s up - There are
historians who would disagree - An excellent discussion of the over-hyping
of the internet as a communications revolution is in THE FUTURE OF THE BOOK
/ edited by Geoffrey Nunberg ; with an afterword by Umberto Eco.  Some of
the authors in this book argue (and document their arguements) that  the
current state of book publishing and copyright is not the natural evolution
of printing as a communication medium but something forced by economic and
political issues in the 18th and 19th century - Eco in his essay makes a
lot of good points about how little the internet really changes the way we
communicate (speed being one exception) - But who knows?
He said:
> [...]  One
>thing about the internet... it places most people on the same footing... I
>see college professors and construction workers duking it out in places like
>Pynchon-l -- there is the ivory tower and the "real" world clashing in one
>forum... the elect and the preterite merging... scary... and somewhere.. out
>there... someone is documenting the whole thing and packaging it all neatly
>in little archives...
I say:
About twenty years ago Vonnnegut participated in a program in the basement
of some church in Manhattan which tried to do what was described above -
After a few meetings everybody realized that it was all too boring and went
home - I would suggest that the clash between the "ivory tower and the
'real' world" has always been around and is well documented - Remember the
video of those construction workers beating up anti-war demonstrators?
he said:
>Personally, I enjoy even that 'tabloidish" stuff floating through this list.
>heck, i wanna know what cereal Tom eats for breakfast...  [...]The Pynchon
>"Mythos"
>is all part of that, and he
>knows it.  I think he uses it to his advantage, and probably gets a damn
>good laugh at our expense... when these posts are forwarded to him (I used
>to think he was subscribed... but couldn't imagine him stomaching much of
>it ;)
I say:
As I said before, I could care less what trp eats for breakfast but that
does not make my attitude toward the author any more "valid" than those who
do care about such things - What I do care about is somebody coming along
and saying that he knows what trp eats for breakfast and publishes it -
Myths have a way of becoming "fact" by mere repetition - I cite (again) the
myth about Andy Williams dubbing Lauren Bacall's voice in TO HAVE OR HAVE
NOT
He said:
>I think one of the best lessons we can learn from Pynchon's writing...and
>PLEASE correct me if you really disagree... is that we shouldn't take life
>so seriously, or we might forget to enjoy living... look at poor Oedipa Maas
>-- or ( a much more severe case) Brock Vond...  [...]
I say:
I agree 100%

I had said:
>>The best way (in my opinion) to understand Pynchon's work is to reject the
>>fables and stories spread about him -
To which he responds:
>Ah shucks... I thought that flame war was over ;)  Seriously, yeah -- I
>agree -- but kill the damn author altogether... if he's not IN the book,
>then fuck him... but then again, I'm one of those raving mad
>postmodernists... ;)
I say:
What flame war?  But if you mean by "kill the author altogether" 'that you
intend to allow the text to stand on itsown then we agree?
I had siad:
>>When people make claims about an
>>author one should question the source of the claims and unless those claims
>>can be verified they should be rejected -
He said:
>Sure, if we're writing a biography about him... or a scholarly paper... but
>isn't fiction great?  We can write anything!  hahahaha  Of course, I do
>agree we SHOULDN"T pass off fiction as fact... that would be "unethical."
>But on the internet... it's all subjective... heck, in life it's all
>subjective... what's the truth anyway?  Whose truth is really true?  Prove
>it.
I say:
Hum, hasn't one book already been written which is based on information
derived from this list? And doesn't the above contradict your first
arguement about the internet being a new means of communicating
information?  Haven't there been discussions on this list about the need to
preserve the archives for Pynchon scholarship?  But yes, a lot of what I've
been arguing is subjective - But I am as entitled to my opinion as those
who disagree - That's what makes a discussion

Peter Giordano
Williams College
Williamstown, MA