Jules talking trash (WAS Meshugginah posts, and other things sundry)

[Doug Millison]

Jules,

I've responded to your comments interstitially, below.

Thanks,
Doug

At 12:52 PM 7/7/97, Jules Siegel wrote:
>I mean is this your whole case, that I am either a liar or incompetent? If
>so, it's a waste of everyone's time.

I don't believe many on the list would agree that trying to put in
perspective the many things that you've said about Pynchon represents a
waste of time. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

Please note that "liar" and "incompetent" are not words that I've used in
my posts to you. I've raised reasonable objections to your claims of
perfect recall, and I've put what you've told us about your practice as a
journalist in the context of what I know about journalism . I've also noted
the overwhelming negativity of what you have to say about Pynchon as a
person and as an author.

>You are making a fool of yourself with these claims and ridiculous
>accusations. You reveal your unrelenting favoritism for your cult hero,
>while dehumanizing those who present his mortality. This is human robot
>behavior. You reason according to a program, not according to the data,
>whose existence you deny.

I've only been trying to point out some of your human qualities (potential
for memory inaccuracy after this many years; possibility that your are
still understandably upset at what Pynchon did with your "girl", to name
two).

I don't feel foolish, and while I may be many things, I know I'm not a
robot. I'm quite comfortable with my ability to think and reason. I
challenge you to point to anything in my posts that reveals "unrelenting
favoritism for your cult hero" (or that I even look to Pynchon as a cult
hero in the first place), or evidence of my "dehumanizing those who present
his mortality".

If you feel I've "dehumanized" you, I apologize, for that is far from my
intention; I'm clear that you're human, with the human frailities we all
share.  I will point out that your calling me a "robot" seems to be a
pretty good instance of the "dehumanization" you accuse me of.

Jules said of Chrissie:
>She's quite touchy and hypersensitive
>about what people write about her.

It's you, not Pynchon, who has written directly and publicly about Chrissie.

Jules said, of Chrissie:
>Do you think she liked seeing her Shirley Temple routines linked to Bianca,
>of all characters? Was she supposed to like the possibility that some people
>might think Katje was somehow based on her and assume that the shit-eating
>scene was also? Do you think that someone with her kind of mind liked seeing
>her physical description and some of the details of her love life attached
>to Jessica Swanlake, who is hardly a mental giant?

Are we to assume that Chrissie actually told you these things?
And, now Chrissie is to be understood as the model for Bianca, Katje, and
Jessica?
I observe that it's you making these explicit connections for us now, not
Pynchon or anybody else.

Jules said:
>I think it was Playboy's job to assess my credibility,

Playboy didn't publish Lineland.

Doug said:
>>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.
>
Jules said:
>Here you again go beyond the limits of civilized discourse. I haven't talked
>trash about Pynchon in any way at all.

Interesting that you (not me) mention "the limits of civilized discourse."
It's a good subject

Tell me why these assertions in Lineland don't represent talking "trash"
and how they are "quite affectionate" :
--"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)

That wouldn't be out of place on Oprah or Geraldo.

Jules said:
> You are
>attacking us from a position of complete ignorance.

I'm not attacking, merely analyzing, and it's hardly from a position of
"complete ignorance' -- I'm responding quite specifically to what you've
put out for us all on this list and in Lineland.

Jules said:
>More than that, Pynchon did talk trash about Chrissie in Gravity's Rainbow
>and she was not there to defend herself. He also talked a lot of trash to
>her about me in order to disrupt our marriage. Some of the things he said to
>her appear in Gravity's Rainbow. Where was she to defend herself when this
>was published and who will listen to her now?

I'd be quite happy to listen to Chrissie.  Instead, we've listened to what
you've said she said. That doesn't necessarily mean that you're not being
accurate, but it certainly means that we get what she said through your
filter.

Individuals who have been recognizably slandered in a work of art have
legal recourse. I believe I read recently  a woman has sued Joe Klein,
author of the controversial political novel "Primary Colors", for
portraying her, recognizably she claims, as a librarian who has casual sex
with the novel's protagonist who is patterened after Bill Clinton in that
roman a clef.

Jules said:
>his right as a Great Artist.
> Great Lord's attention

Sounds bitter, Jules.

Thanks,
Doug


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