[Austin-ghetto-list] jaxon's rant, part 4+

[jaxon41]

Hi Gang-

Yall were hit by a barrage of my rants today all in one package (I hope)
because my earlier transmissions didn't go through on ando.pair address.
I've also been trying to contribute my two-cents worth for a month or two on
things like the Sweet Maria vs. Janis party at Gilbert's house (where I
taped some of the music) and a great story I've got on Tami throwing an
intimate, candle-lit dinner with LSD punch to try and seduce the Hell's
Angel poet Freewheelin' Frank.  Alas, none of my efforts to contribute to
the circle got through, due to my ignorance of proper email procedures.
I've been very frustrated because of my lack of ability to work this damn
machine, but maybe I'm finally getting the hang of it.

Part 3 of my Chronicle rant was about my response to Ventura's crappy review
of Lost Cause, which editor Louis Black wouldn't print and has been
gathering dust in a cardboard box almost exactly three years now.  Why
wouldn't Louis print it?  You tell me.  Yeah, I know it's not a great piece
of writing; things hammered out overnight and delivered the next day rarely
are.  Still, this did not keep Louis from running Ventura's review, which V.
later admitted was a "good night's work."  Is it possible (likely?) that my
closing statement about how V. should--if he didn't like Texas--go back to
wherever he came from hit a raw nerve in the Chron brain trust?  Yes, it was
a tacky remark, but at that time many of us old Austinites were fed up with
the Yuppie Invasion and the way it was changing our living space.  At one
point I even did a teeshirt, "Native Texan: An Endangered Species" etc.

Louis, Nick, and their buddies aren't Yuppies, but they had heard how groovy
Austin was, piled in a car, and hit the scene.  Can't hold that against
them, as many of us ghetto people had done the same thing in the Sixties and
invaded San Francisco.  I think it's safe to say that our exodus contributed
to the Bay Area's creative ferment in many ways.  Hell, some of us--Powell,
Porterfield, and Chet Helms among them--are still there!  So, my intent was
not to wrap myself in the Texas flag and demand that all these
johnny-come-lately folks at the Chron head back to New Jersey, etc.  I, as a
historian, realized long ago that many Yankees have turned into notable
Texans.  Richard King started out as a homeless waif in the Brooklyn slums,
for example, but is there any name more recognizable today as "Texan"?  Not
unless you count Fontaine's gggg-grandpa, Sam Maverick, or maybe Sam Houston
and his descendants.

Whatever his real reason for not printing my rebuttal, here's the one Louis
gave in his "Page Two" of the Chron's 2 Oct. 1998 issue:

THIS WEEK WE LOSE A FRIEND.  Two weeks ago, Michael Ventura harshly
criticized Jack Jackson's new graphic novel Lost Cause.  Jackson, who has
been a friend of this paper since it's inception, strongly objected to the
review and sent us a 13-page, handwritten, point-by-point rebuttal, asking
us to publish it.  Before he sent it, we told him we wouldn't publish it,
that we would let him go long if he wanted to write a letter, but no
rebuttal.

Every week we publish reviews of books, films, music, restaurants, art,
theatre, and more.  If we allowed everyone who disagreed with a review of
their art to rebut it, we would have room for little else.  In his letter
asking us to consider publishing his response he wrote: [paragraph about me
being blindsided by the Chron, and how I didn't think Louis would let
Ventura piss on me like this].

When I received Jack Jackson's Lost Cause, I found it troubling.  Jack
Jackson is an artist and historian I tremendously admire, and I look forward
eagerly to any new work of his.  I was troubled by this one and thus drafted
the two most obvious reviewers--Michael Ventura, who had co-written a
never-produced screenplay on John Wesley Hardin, and Jesse Sublett, who
knows as much about Western and Texas history as anyone I know and more than
anyone I can think of.  Sublett offered [told Louis] that he didn't want to
review it but [would instead] provide an historical and bibliographic
context; Ventura reviewed it.  He found the book wanting in several ways.
The most significant to Jackson were that he questioned Jackson's historical
accuracy (Jackson is an award-winning historian) and that he labeled the
work racist.  This is the label Jack Jackson objects to most strongly.

The historical dispute revolves around a rifle shown in one scene.  Jackson
defends the rifle he depicts, and Ventura maintains it wasn't historically
accurate.  This is the kind of detail a letter can address.  But there is
also the bigger issue of racism.  We treated this book with the utmost
respect, but Ventura disliked it intensely.  He thought it was racist.
Jackson disagrees.  Unfortunately, Ventura wasn't reviewing Jackson or his
stellar artistic history (groundbreaking underground comix, excellent
graphic novels on Quanah Parker and Juan Seguin), he was reviewing Lost
Cause.  In printing this review, our relationship with Jackson was
irrelevant.

At some point, you put your work of art out there and it must speak for
itself.  Ventura didn't like the book and felt Jackson was racist.  He made
his points clearly and well.  We couldn't and wouldn't suppress this review
because we respect Jackson.  We DO respect Jackson and his unhappy reaction
breaks our heart.  But we also respect Michael Ventura and stand by his
review.

HA HA HAH!  "Breaks our heart," my ass.  In my next installment we shall see
how Louis Black is not being honest (can we call it lying?) about how the
review gang-bang team was assembled.