WELLESNET MESSAGE BOARD

Thank you, Peter, for the report. Not having read the issue in question, I will assume for the moment that your assessment of David Thomson's work in Sweeney's #31 is accurate. During the years since his disillusionment with Welles, Thomson does not seem to have changed his opinion that the man he once worshiped suffered a rather swift decline after CITIZEN KANE, and though he has been more in sympathy with Welles than, say, Simon Callow appeared to be before Hello Americans, it is unilkely that he will change his harsh judgment, "snarky" though it may be in the 21st Century.

I do think it is a bit unfair of you not to have informed your colleagues here that, according to reviews of fellow San Franciscan iconoclast Dave Eggers' latest hardcover magazine, Thomson was meeting a challenge thrown out by the editors to write in a form familiar to well-known writers of previous generations. You might have noted that Eggers gave selected authors a year to come up with homages or parodies, such as a 17th Century French "Whore Dialogue" or a "Graustarkian Romance." Thomson evidently drew or picked an easier trick, a "Socratic Symposium."

Thus, it is not simply Thomson's dull mind recycling Rosebud which caused him to have imaginary reincarnations of Virginia Woolf, Franz Kafka, Ernest Hemingway, and Charlie Chaplin arguing whether or not CITIZEN KANE is "the greatest film ever made." One can imagine that David Thomson, a working journalist and critic when he is not turning out novels, travel books, Hollywood studies or biographies, was meeting a deadline for an assigned piece. And in fact, early reviews have singled out Thomson's effort as being one of the more successful in the new issue.

At least, not having actually read the symposium, that's how I would understand it. I can't grasp that Thomson has all of the 20th Century literary giants listed above only parroting his view of Welles you say you so despise. You don't really mean that Thomson engages in that depth of intellectual dishonesty, do you? At least in my mind's vision, I can see and hear a quite tough, witty and engaging mano a mano between Hemingway and Chaplin, for instance.

No?

Unable any longer to afford Eggers' expensive periodical, am I wrong?

Glenn

Since you asked, Glenn, you are totally wrong, and Keats is totally right.

But lets discuss it in more detail at the Ha Ra club in early August, when Lee Gordon arrives from LA and a new SF Wellesnet recruit can join us.

Maybe even the esteemed webmaster of Wellesnet can be there, depending on his busy schedule, if we offer him unlimited Bombay Gin Gimlets!

Toddy: Not having read Mr. Thomson's work of the imagination, as I say, my purpose is to gain insight, to be informed. But your denial is not an explanation. To be wrong is one thing, a condition I'm familiar with; to be TOTALLY wrong is something else. Are you saying that Thomson has Virginia Woolf , Franz Kafka, Ernest Hemingway, and Charlie Chaplin all piling on the memory and reputation of Orson Welles? Or are you floating an idea that Thomson uncharacteristically revives his early admiration for his hero, Welles, but does so in the careless, factually licensed, slipshod manner, you, Peter, and others have condemned in years gone by?

To say that I'm totally wrong, I'll accept, grudgingly. To say that Peter is totally right leaves me wondering, what does such a statement mean, given what he has written? You're the guys who have read Sweeney's #31, right? I'm puzzling over the meaning of the paradox which I see.

[Perhaps, you might use some of your "Desperate Gin-Drinkers Fund" money to purchase for me an extra copy of Sweeney's #31. We have no doubt sold a few copies to the more affluent among us by now. Or at least sent them out to a library which carries it.]

I'm just asking for a little clarity! A little Socratic clarity?

Meanwhile, though you may be counting your Bombay Gimlets before they're mixed, I also look forward to the August meet -- that would be mid-August, I believe -- especially now that you have awarded me the title of "Don Fraser" in your Mafia Family Wars context.

Additionally, though I'm suppressing growing suspicion that you and Mr. French, at least, have become secret tools of the DAX Foundation, I welcome the possibility of meeting a new SF Wellesnet recruit. Who could it be? Peter, Nick Badseed, Michael Jackson, King Tut . . . or David Thomson himself? I put nothing past you these days, Baesen.

Next, you'll be telling me that this Gordon fellow is a philanthropic representative for DAX. Wait a minute . . . Gordon . . . Gin?

I GET IT!

Until I look once again through that mask of unkempt hair into those glittery eyes of yours, perhaps across brimful glasses of plain old Ha-Ra Club gin, I remain, obediently yours . . . .

Glenn Anders

Glenn:

My comment was actually supposed to be a joke - but it obviously didn't translate very well.

You of course brought up some very interesting and valid points!

Thank you, Todd.

And thank you, Peter. Your emended dispatch is much clearer and more helpful.

Believe me, as one who, in desperation, a couple of years ago, sold off about 200 books on film from a 650 total, and one who can now hardly walk twenty feet without pausing to gasp, if I could "get off [my] rear" with twenty bucks, I would gladly go to a Barnes and Noble (Booksmith, an independent,on Upper Haight, is my choice here, where Toddy and I made a foolish pair at David Thomson's book-signing for his disastrous love letter to Nicole Kidman); I don't like to freeload -- one reason, I'm broke. "Old School," don-cha know?

If you ever get out here to San Francisco, you might indeed be VERY impressed with what Eggers is accomplishing with teenagers' writing on Valencia Street. A couple of years ago, I heard a presentation by a couple of his young poets. Excellent, just excellent, no pomposity or condescension implied.

Meanwhile, Peter, I wholeheartedly subscribe to your endorsement of the work Mr. French is doing on our front page, even if I half-seriously question his new relationship with the DAX Foundation, given our OTHER major prejudice at Wellesnet.

Clarity and civility . . . let's keep this combination up!

Glenn