....sometimes honor consists in admitting you fucked up.

-- Gary Indiana

None other than the author of the above words recently advised me that I fucked up in a previous post, by misidentifying him as the author of Salo.

Gary Indiana, it should be noted, is NOT the author of Salo the film, but of Salo or the 120 Days of Sodom -- an important book about the film.

He's also been described as "one of the most important chroniclers of the American psyche" by the Guardian, so I think I should take his criticism seriously enough to warrant this separate post.

Here's Mr. Indiana's email to me:

> Sweetie,
>
> I think you should go back to school for a while:
> Pier Paolo Pasolini
> made the film "Salo," a landmark of film history, in
> 1975, not me.
> Before you start faulting other people's logic,
> perhaps you should have
> a more direct encounter with the world of facts than
> you seem to have
> had thusfar.
>
> Best,
>
> Gary Indiana

I apologized to the author in an email, in an update, and here again. I repeat, he is not the author of the film! I should have known that, because I saw the film in the 1970s, and knew that it was a Pasolini film. So, I can't even offer an excuse. I was in a hurry, I guess.

As to Mr. Indiana's advice, I would certainly love to go back to school for a while. But I'm not sure that even that would prevent me from making such factual errors. All I can do is note them as I become aware of them.

So much for the direct part of today's "direct encounter with facts." As to "faulting other people's logic" I'll continue to do that, and if I make mistakes (with logic or facts), I'll be glad to acknowledge either. In any case, the logic of my post was not dependent on whether Mr. Indiana's wrote Salo; only his unquestioned familiarity with the subject material.

Here were my assertions (not all of which were based on logic):

1. I just can't seem to take "the systemic and implacable evils of maintaining an empire that is inherently vampiric and suicidal" as a "given." Might as well parse out a sentence begining with "given that you are a child-molesting crack addict...."

I still can't take it as a logical presupposition that the United States is an inherently vampiric and suicidal empire. Or a "terrorist oligarchy." These and other assertions are offered without proof, and none of them depend on Gary Indiana's status as author of any film or book.

2. I have never seen so many unsupported ad hominem attacks in a book review.

Well, I haven't. This is not to day that there may not be another review which contains more; just that I haven't seen it. Which may be more evidence that I need to return to school for a while.

3. But perhaps he pulled a few punches, for the reviewer didn't accuse Bush of torturing children at parties. ("Gary Indiana", it should be noted, authored the famous fascist-erotic child torture film, Salò.)

This is not a logical argument, nor is it an attempt to fault Mr. Indiana's actual logic. It's just my speculation he might have pulled punches. Hey, I pull punches all the time, for what its worth. It's not even a criticism. My mistake about Salo, while inexcusable, does not affect my speculation; hence, if I said, "'Gary Indiana', it should be noted, authored a book about the famous fascist-erotic child torture film, Salò," my speculation would probably have been the same. But looking back, I admit that it was unnecessarily argumentative (and insinuatory) for me to suggest that Mr. Indiana pulled punches by not saying that Bush tortures children. I was probably irritated at the time, and I apologize for that too. In my defense, I note that when I'm blogging, being argumentative and even suggestive, are, well, part of the flow, and just expected! I am sorry for suggesting that Mr. Indiana might think (but not state in writing) that Bush tortures children. At parties or anywhere else.

4. Plus, he was fair enough to chide Bill Clinton -- if only for being gracious to Barbara Bush, the new queen of evil.

While what I said was true -- Mr. Indiana did chide Bill Clinton for being gracious to Barbara Bush -- my tone was sarcastic, and sarcasm is one of my habits. It may be a bad habit, and maybe I should work on it. But once again, that is one of the things that makes blogging what it is. Sarcasm abounds. It might not be up to the standards of George Washington, but I'm not George Washington! (Useful Washington link via Glenn Reynolds.)

I ended that post with a question, "Are things getting nasty or what?" I did think that the things Mr. Indiana wrote were nasty, and I may have weakened my argument by treating such nastiness in a sarcastic or offhanded manner.

I was getting a little tired of it all, and I still am. Sarcasm is just a coping mechanism. (I once imagined that blogging was too.)