L*** as Pynchon Authority (redux)

[Peter Giordano]

Prefatory remarks:

1) It is interesting (to me) that Jester has read the book in question,
and has made an effort to find some value in the postings of the
ifc (perhaps he was not yet sent a message that he was going to have
his "faced ripped off")

2) My comments ARE NOT about the book as an object to be
reviewed - I limit my comments to a) the general ethics behind
which Pynchon (or any other) scholarship is built, b) the ethics
of journalism in general, c) observations about the postings of
the ifc which I have read (around the time I was told I was going 
to have my face ripped off I decided to stop reading those particular
"gems")

Jester said:
>(Actually he quoted me:)
>"And it's so easy to provide facts if the person you're writing about does
>not respond or lead a public life - The only reason the author of the book
>in question can present "facts" about TRP and get attention is because
>>this person had a vague association with TRP over 30 years ago - Imagine
>Norman Mailer's reaction if somebody who lived downstairs from him
>30 years ago decided to advertise himself or herself as a Mailer
>expert."
(Then he said:)
>This is the deciding factor, isn't it, for accepting the words of [****] and
>[*****] as "Gospel Truth" about TRP, isn't it?  (except that their
>association does appear to have been more than passing, they seem to have
>been more than casual acquantances -- especially in  case!)  But
>the question does remain...  [I delete some scurilous rumors apparently
spread by somebody on this list (not Jester)} ... [****]'s article has been 
readily 
> accepted into the Pynchon "canon" as fuel for scholarship

I say:
Several issues are raised above - Would the book in question have any
value at all if TRP were not so sercretive?  What is the value of an
unsubstantiated rumor?   Do such rumors tell us anything about TRP or
are they more revealing of the person spreading the rumor?  What
could be a person's motive for spreading rumors (i.e. Would a book
which concludes that TRP is just a "regular guy" be of any interest or
have any "market value"?  Finally, would the 1977 article have any
value if there was not such a lack of ready data?  Most public figures 
have not suffered the fate of TRP simply because they are more
available - The dilemma for the author of the book in question is two-fold:
a) how to generate material for which people will spend money, b) how to
attract enough attention on the list to generate material for a book about
his or her adventures on the list - One easy answer to this is that
scandel, rumor, and confrontation all sell

Jester said:
> ...  Furthermore, the
>book seems to be marketed toward the Pynchon "crowd."  The back flap reads
>like some marvelous advertisement for  soap opera or trashy pop novel -- of
>course the book doesn't deliver on this -- it's just used to attract, imho.

I say:
And perhaps this might be a metaphor for the whole experience: A person
sees an opportunity to "cash in" because of the publicity surrounding 
the publication of M & D so the person creates a soap opera (read
flame war) in order to sell a pile of material either available elsewhere or
whose value might be reasonably questioned (i.e. does an autobiography 
of the ifc really add to anybody's understanding of the works of TRP?, does 
a one-sided commentary on flame wars on PYNCHON-L add to an understanding
of the list?)

Jester said:
>The backflap says that [***] is a "new kind of book that's changing the
>way people think about literature..." Well... I'm not sure about that.  It's
>marginally postmodern in narrative structure -- nothing new.  The flap also
>asks, "Is it a true-life novel? Personal journalism?  An uncanny hoax?"
>These are valid questions, but I'm not sure they apply -- besides, what
>exactly IS "personal journalism?"  

I say:
Now, we have somebody who read the book commenting on the content -
I have already in previous postings presented titles already in print that
do exactly what this author claims to be the first to do - These are
all in the archive so I won't repeat them - But I will comment on the
author's claim that this new book " ...is a "new kind of book that's 
changing the
>way people think about literature"  - 1) Just when did it start
changing the way anybody thinks about anything?  I thought it just
came out, 2) This sort of hyperbole is a clue to the whole affair - The
value of any statements made about TRP or the members of this list
must be taken in the context of the above - In other words, what does
this author need to say and do to sell this book?  

Jester said:
> ... I think the book sets out to accurately
>portray the mailing list experience -- and it succeeds in that regard.

I say:
I guess I would wonder why one would want to read a printed text
of the list - A more accurate (in my opinion) way to get a sense of
Pynchon-L would be to read the list itself - And more important: one-sided
commentary by one of the participants in the flame wars is hardly something
valueable - In the same context, one would not want to use OJ Simpson's
book as the commentary on the murders and trial - Dale has made the comment
(and I'm paraphrasing) that the internet needs to be edited - I cannot agree -
The users of the internet must learn how to evaulate what they find - The
whole glory of the intenet is that it cannot be edited - I have no quarrel
with Dale's desire to make money and I hope he suceeds -I won't
be paying out any money for this particular book though

For those who are interested in the topic "the future of the book"
I recommend the title below - None of the essays are by anybody
who knew TRP thirty years ago but all of them are informative
and entertaining - Particularly Eco's:

             The future of the book / edited by Geoffrey
              Nunberg ; with an afterword by Umberto Eco
              Berkeley : University of California Press, c1996



Peter Giordano
Williams College
Williamstown, MA