L*** as Pynchon Authority (redux)

[jester]

At 03:11 PM 05/11/1997 -0400, Peter Giordano wrote:

>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")

Well, I wouldn't feel comfortable commenting on my private email on the
list, but you're right... no "face ripping threats..."  I posted to the list
some time ago my desire to give the book a chance to stand on its own merit.
I think it does.  I don't think it would if Pynchon were removed from it --
of course, then it wouldn't have been THIS book.  Actually, I would probably
have been more interested in it if Jules had used the erotica mailing list
as his fuel rather than our own.

>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<snip>

I'm very glad that you are doing this.  Really.  I think these are valid
issues to discuss on this list.  I do give the book, as it stands, a fair
and mostly favorable review -- but I am hesitant.  I freely admit it.  I
care about things like ethics and scholarship and journalism and
unsubstantiated rumors don't sit well with me.  I think Jules should have
expected his book and comments to be received with misgivings... and mixed
feelings.  Heck, look at the way his posts were initially recieved!  Some
people were comfortable with them, others were not.  In the end, I'm curious
as to why this was not anticipated by Jules (and Dale) and addressed.  I
suppose it doesn't matter to them, but it does to me, and to many other
people on this list, and to many Pynchon fans who are not on this list who
may encounter the material presented in Jules' book.

<snip>

>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?)
>

I don't think Jules denies being opportunistic in this regard.  Also, the
timing of the whole project is questionable.  Just business, though.  I
suppose if it didn't affect a subject we hold dear, we wouldn't give it a
second thought.  It is, after all, the American way.

I think your comments here make a whole lot of sense and put things into
perspective.  Jules' autobiography adds nothing to my understanding of and
appreciation of Pynchon's work.  His (and Chrissie's) comments about Pynchon
might possibly be of use, but you're right... they are questionable. [part
of Jules' "uncanny hoax" I wonder...]  And Jules selective use of Pynchon-L
quotes and commentary is one-sided... I think the book should be examined
with that in mind.




>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?"  


>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

Your comments do make me reconsider my own.  I've been on the Internet in
its various forms since 1984. I've seen it all (well...most of it ;-)  I
think Jules' book is a slice of life... of HIS life... HIS experience on
Pynchon-l seen through HIS eyes and retold by HIM.  It has no real
authority... it's all opinion and commentary... it's Jules' chronicle of his
experience.  I think it accurately portrays how HE felt and what issues were
important to HIM on the list.  In that is IS successful. But he book dosn't
accurately portray MINE experience on the list, or anyone else's.

I won't attempt to place VALUE on the book.  I found it interesting and an
enjoyable read... but I was comparing it to MY OWN experience, and I was
there when this all happened... I remembered the whole incident rather
fondly, really. I thought it all rather amusing... but then again, I didn't
take it seriously at all.  It was all in fun.


>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


Thank you for the wonderful recommendation!  Sounds like a great read,
especially if Eco's involved! And yes, if you're interested in the subject,
it probably would be of more help than Jules' book, imho.

JJ "Jester"