Lineland vs. %list folks words - a brief review

[jester]

At 05:18 AM 05/09/1997 -0400, Dale wrote (privately...but I'm quoting him
here WITH permission... I asked...):

First off, there is no offense met.  My purpose in posting this message is
to continue the DISCUSSION of Jules' book, not to defame or to discredit it,
the author or the publisher.  I just want to clear things up a bit.  I don't
think I'm being unfair, just objective.  I like Jules.  I think he's a good
person.  I like the idea of the book, and I think it achieves its goals.

>I'm still really curious as to which of the galleys we sent out went to 
>jester...

My guess is that it's the most up-to-date.  It includes John's (Mascaro)
brief "essay," the index, looks like the finished product to me.

>Given that you have so many positive things to say about Lineland, I 
>almost hate to add my $.02, but...

Normally I'd think that responding to a review is bad form, but in this
case, it's not a review but a discussion, so your response I both welcome
and helpful.  It is my purpose in this discussion to further my
understanding of your intentions, purposes and motivations for writing
(Jules) and publishing (Dale) the book.  Your posts do much to dampen the
flames, I think, of those who had initially flamed the idea claiming their
words were being "stolen" or "misappropriated."  I've certainly changed my
tune somewhat, and I'm more "for" the book than "against."  I gave the book
a chance, as promised, and it does stand up on it's own merit.

>>rewrite or 'F'
>
>It isn't a scholarly paper, so we don't care that teacher might grade us down
>for quoting others more than teacher would like.  We only care if it is a
>good read (and that we've met legal requirements and that we're being
>reasonably fair and nice people, and that world hunger is being decreased
>while world peace is increased).

Oh, it's obviously NOT scholarly.  I understand that.  And I think it's
clear that you "only care if it is a good read," but in publishing this
book, on this subject, with the heart of the book being the Pynchon-L
mailing list, a literature mailing list, and with some "insights" into the
man, the author, Pynchon -- it's only logical to assume/suppose/speculate
that scholars WILL pay attention to this book, to some degree.  Also, it's
being marketed as a book that has much to do with Pynchon and his
relationship with Chrissie and Jules (read the back flap) -- as well as
having to do with the mailing list.  I just think that more effort should
have been taken in attributing sources of the posts, that's all -- I wasn't
"grading" the book.  Please. The "grade" was what I said I'd give a student
handing in a paper without attributing sources -- and although I admit my
use of the word "plagiarize" was a but harsh, I thought my point was
clear... I said that Jules' book was "certainly not downright plagiarism."
THERE IS NONE OF THAT IN LINELAND!!! (for the record)  My point is that
although the book might be used as scholarly material in the future, it
doesn't have the authority it could have had.  

>Lineland is a combination of art and journalism.  Can't a collage be good art
>even when it is 100% reused bits? And certainly the best reporting uses 
>the subjects' own words when possible.

Not sure what you're getting at here... but good reporting also goes great
lengths to attribute sources adequately, and reporters generally ask their
sources if they can quote them (unless they are public figures... I believe
that's pretty standard).  Yes, I think "collage" is a near accurate
description of the book -- very good, Dale!  (it's probably one of the best
descriptions I've heard yet... entirely accurate)  Certainly good art can be
just that... good art.

>If we'd sought permission of every single poster in advance, would that 
>change your opinion of this aspect of the book?  If so, I think you 
>should more clearly state that your objection -- as it is, it's not clear 
>whether you object that permission should have been sought because that's 
>the way things should be done, or because it would have been a better 
>book for the reader with less quoting and more Jules (or more 
>paraphrasing), or both.

Cool.  You're right. If I knew that each poster had given prior permission,
my reaction would have been slightly different (to say the least), and I
reckon that the reaction of most folk on Pynchon-L would have been
different.  But that's water under the bridge, correct?  This entire issue
is rather confusing, honestly.  If anything... outside of any effect
Lineland might have on Pynchon scholarship or Pynchon-L, the book certainly
brings Internet copyright issues to the table.  As far as I know, the Modern
Language Association, in its latest handbook, outlines good guidelines for
citing email as source material -- it accurately attributes email quotations
to their source (and points to places on the Internet where that source
might be found).  I think that if you (Jules and Dale) had been more
accurate in this regard, it would have cleared up all confusion -- and the
quotes would not only meet the good "scholarly" standards, but would have
truly proven their "fair use" AND would have pointed to their accurate
locations in the archive so that researchers could read them IN CONTEXT,
something that is impossible in Lineland.

>I think it is important to note that almost every pissed-off rant to
>Pynchon-L about the subject came from people not even quoted in the book. 
>The comments from those actually in the book mostly came via private email in
>response to our private notice to just those people.  Look how many submitted
>a bio (http://www.iam.com/lineland/bios.html), implying at least some degree
>of acceptance. 

Sure, they've accepted after the fact... as John seems to have done -- but
his essay does reveal misgivings... I'm happy.  But again, it's not so much
that permission wasn't given as that it was not accurately recorded in the book.

>Several people quoted in the book (we belive the most important ones) were
>told about it in advance, and did give their permission (though in one case
>it was given, taken away, and given again).  Even among those who weren't,
>with few exceptions (I can't think of a significant one, though I don't know
>who the annonymous poster of the private email was), participants were
>ambivalent or were outright positive about their 15 minutes of fame.  Several
>commented that it would have been more "polite" to ask their permission, but
>most seemed to agree, at least to some degree, with the position that the
>various archives of Pynchon-L just aren't very different from using the
>postings in Lineland -- posts to cyberspace are MEANT to be distributed, 
>and may be distributed in any number of forms.  Some even agree that the 
>artistic and journalistic goals of Lineland couldn't have been met if 
>we'd been talking to the list about the project, and certainly the kind 
>of reaction we saw from the list probably would have been the same 
>whether we'd posted in advance that we wanted to do the book or after the 
>fact -- Jules just creates some damn strong reactions in people.  (Though 
>I wish he wouldn't always try so hard!  If only he realized just how 
>appreciated his work is by some, he wouldn't have to defend it so much to 
>the others.)

Fair.  You are most eloquently correct.

>In fairness, even most of the people in the book haven't seen it, and 
>some of them might change their tune when they do (either way).

Again, this is all possible.

But please remember, my tune is a positive one.  I just prefer to err on the
side of clarity... again, that means accurately citing my sources...

No offense given... None taken...

JJ "Jester"