L*** as Pynchon Authority (redux)

[Peter Giordano]

Jester said:

<snip>
>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.
<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 [said]:
>>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?)
>>
And jester responds:
>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 (n a previous mesage):
>>> ... I think the book sets out to accurately
>>>portray the mailing list experience -- and it succeeds in that regard.
>>
>>And I responded:
>>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

Jester says:
>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.
>
I say:
I find Jester's even handedness(is that a word?) refreshing - He's read the
book
in question, he's dealt with the ifc and me and he's weighing issues
without foaming
at the mouth  -I'm glad that he's found enjoyment in his reading of the
book in question -
 I have to admit that I'm also pleased that after his reading of the book he
sees my point - Would that I could be as generous towards the ifc but I have
an overdeveloped sense of moral outrage - I see in my work all the time the
way that bad scholarship gets integrated into the mainstream because of a
lack of information - All sorts of rumors become "collectively accepted facts"
merely through repetition - I'll give an example which is not from literature -

Many of you have heard through the years that in the film TO HAVE OR
HAVE NOT  Lauren Bacall's singing voice was dubbed by Andy
Williams - A recent (WELL RESEARCHED!) biography of Bogart demonstrates
that this is simply not true - Or you can take the rumor that Cary Grant
and Randolph Scott were "married" - Again, good scholarship traces that
rumor to a gossip columist who had about the same relationship to Grant
that the ifc has to TRP

For better or worse, the article published in the mainstream press by the ifc
will be a reference point for scholarship - The new work (again for better
or worse) will probably be nothing more than a foot note to a foot note (but
that is just my opinion - Maybe it will prove to be the ground breaking
work on TRP scholarship) - But we all have a responsibility to evaluate
information, question the source, and only promote what we know is
true

I've been very vocal on this but I've not threatened to rip anybody's
face off, nor have I ridiculed anybody's chosen profession (although
I might point out that TRP probably values libraries and librarians more
than he values people who try to trade a personal relationship for cash)

Alas, for Jester and anybody else who is considering reviewing the book
in question - I'm willing to bet that no negative comment no matter how
small will go unrebutted or unpunished (just how many faces can be
ripped off in a given day?) - For all those who plop down their cash for
the book I hope you enjoy it - I prefer to stand with  those who choose to
 avoid the enrichment of a person who leeches on another's reputation -
Good luck to Dale and IAM - Although I can't agree that internet discourse
needs to be edited by a third party I can agree that censorship of the internet
is a bad thing and I'm glad he fights against it

Have a nice day all

Peter Giordano
Williams College
Williamstown, MA