Meshugginah posts, and other things sundry

[Doug Millison]

At 8:31 AM 7/7/97, Jules Siegel wrote:
>Please try to comment on what I actually wrote and to what Chrissie actually
>told me to put into Lineland. I didn't put any words in her mouth. She read
>the entire manuscript before it was published. She made some comments to
>Dale and Faera about a couple of items she didn't feel were fairly
>paraphrased and I corrected them.

We can't know "what Chrissie actually told (you) to put into Lineland"
because we weren't there when she told you. Most of what Chrissie says in
Lineland is reported by you indirectly ("paraphrased" as you say), not in
direct quotes from her. That's what I call putting "words in her mouth".
Also, if I understand correctly what you've written in Lineland, you were
the intermediary for Chrissie's answers to online questions from p-list
participants. In Lineland, Chrissie notes your paraphrasing tendency, too:
"She said she never said anything at all to me about him as a lover and
that I made up that paragraph in my article. I told her that I had
paraphrased what she said and that I put it there because I was trying to
be nice to him. She didn't want me to be nice to him. I made her look like
an imbecile." (p. 74)

My original point -- addressing those on the p-list who felt "guilty" about
listening to the "revelations" you and Chrissie provided and taking part in
the exercise in gossip that you and Chrissie offered -- remains valid:
there just isn't that much in Lineland about Pynchon that went beyond what
you had already published in your Playboy article, and it's difficult to
assess the credibility of what you do offer that wasn't originally in the
Playboy piece.

Listening to uncorroborated, scurrilous gossip without questioning it's
veracity -- that's what would make me feel "guilty" in this or any other
encounter where somebody talks trash about somebody else who isn't there to
answer for himself.

In Lineland, you amplify the discussion of Pynchon's use of marijuana
(previously mentioned in your Playboy article); amplify his frugality
(previously mentioned in your Playboy article; in Lineland you build on
this quite a bit); rehash Pynchon's interest in pigs (previously mentioned
in your Playboy article); and you go into more detail about Pynchon's teeth
(previously mentioned in your Playboy article; in Lineland you speculate on
the psychological impact bad teeth must have had on Pynchon).

You add some new stuff about Pynchon in Lineland:
--He likes junk food (p. 78)
--"He broke up more than one marriage, because he was too shy to find
someone on his own." (p. 78)
--Pynchon is not "brave" or adventurous (won't go to Africa; can't find his
own girlfriend so he goes out with his friends' wives) (p. 78)
--"He had a big thing for Lolitas" (p. 73)
--"he was a fucking anti-Semite" (p. 75)
--He's "very conventional and old-fashioned and has the values of his
generation of the Fifties" and a wanna-be hipster (he'd like to "wear a
black leather jacket"  or "to be one of those surfers" (pp. 53-54)

And in fact you do claim that you and Chrissie had a big impact on
Pynchon's writing, as I previously noted:
"I also feel very strongly that she had an influence on Tom's writing
style, in the sense of bringing out his visual scene-setting skills, which
I remember as being notably absent from V....I imagine the more concrete
visual style that I perceived in what I read of Gravity's Rainbow was
mostly the result of his maturing as a writer, but I suspect that she had
an important influence."(p.77)
"Bianca, obviously, is based on Chrissie." (p. 76)

On balance, what you have to say about Pynchon the man in Lineland is
negative and demeaning, and you either serve as either the sole primary
source or you report what you tell us that Chrissie told you. As a
journalist, you're presenting unsupported, unsubstantiated gossip. Much of
what you've had to say about Pynchon's work has also been negative and
demeaning. My conclusion is that you have a lot of negative things to say
about Pynchon, and you've gone to great lengths to find an audience for
them, despite your repeated objections that you like him and his work.

-Doug





D O U G  M I L L I S O N ||||||||||| millison at online-journalist.com