20 replies to this topic

[mina]

I decided to start a new topic, instead of continuing the discussion of Diane in the other topic of Woods.

I have a great book called The Doors. By The Doors with Ben Fong-Torres (2006). There are a lot of interviews, including from Diane. She tells, that she and Jim had an affair, and Diane was his muse to some verses in L.A. Woman. Diane says, that Morrison wrote and drew often at her place. From time to time Jim lived in the apartment he had rented for Pamela, which located upstairs and Diane lived downstairs.

Diane found some texts, that Jim had written to her notebook. This was found in there "I just got her(e) about an hour ago, Looking around to see which way the wind blows, Where little girls in the Hollywood Bungalows..." We know those verses ended up as a little bit modified to L.A. Woman.

Diane says that she always played blues for Jim and "Into your blues, into your blue, blue, blues" was referring to that. D and P managed to remain friends in spite of the affair. Diane says that when L.A. Woman was published, Pamela said to her "Well, at least there was a one verse for me I see your hair is burning. That's all that existed".

There's also an interview from Michael Ford (Jim's longtime friend, a poet and a radiocommentator). He says, that L.A. Woman is about Los Angeles, but the initial idea to L.A. Woman came from Diane. He got an impression from Jim, that Diane was the secret muse behind that song. She seemed to be a person Jim respected the most, because she didn't care about the fame and the stars.

There are many interesting interviews in the book and there's more about Diane.

(hey, my mother tongue is not english, don't laugh!!)

edit: This book was published in 2006. Is Diane still around? Does anyone know?

Edited by mina, 26 June 2012 - 12:18 PM.

[queenhwy]

mina, on 26 June 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

I decided to start a new topic, instead of continuing the discussion of Diane in the other topic of Woods.

I have a great book called The Doors. By The Doors with Ben Fong-Torres (2006). There are a lot of interviews, including from Diane. She tells, that she and Jim had an affair, and Diane was his muse to some verses in L.A. Woman. Diane says, that Morrison wrote and drew often at her place. From time to time Jim lived in the apartment he had rented for Pamela, which located upstairs and Diane lived downstairs.

Diane found some texts, that Jim had written to her notebook. This was found in there "I just got her(e) about an hour ago, Looking around to see which way the wind blows, Where little girls in the Hollywood Bungalows..." We know those verses ended up as a little bit modified to L.A. Woman.

Diane says that she always played blues for Jim and "Into your blues, into your blue, blue, blues" was referring to that. D and P managed to remain friends in spite of the affair. Diane says that when L.A. Woman was published, Pamela said to her "Well, at least there was a one verse for me I see your hair is burning. That's all that existed".

There's also an interview from Michael Ford (Jim's longtime friend, a poet and a radiocommentator). He says, that L.A. Woman is about Los Angeles, but the initial idea to L.A. Woman came from Diane. He got an impression from Jim, that Diane was the secret muse behind that song. She seemed to be a person Jim respected the most, because she didn't care about the fame and the stars.

There are many interesting interviews in the book and there's more about Diane.

(hey, my mother tongue is not english, don't laugh!!)

edit: This book was published in 2006. Is Diane still around? Does anyone know?

I knew I read it somewhere and I couldn't remember!  Thanks!

I'm sure she is still around, I just don't know where.

[mina]

queenhwy, on 26 June 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

I knew I read it somewhere and I couldn't remember!  Thanks!

I'm sure she is still around, I just don't know where.

You're welcome.

She mentions also the verse
motel money
murder madness
let's change the mood
from glad to sadness

As those things had happened (to her, them?).

Diane also tells in the book, that Jim was hesitating of going to Paris. Jim received postcards from Pamela saying she's crying all the time, because she misses him so. Diane moved to Sausalito to work with Jefferson Airplane and told to Jim to move to Paris. So he did. Diane thinks she had an influence on Jim's decision, because they really had something going on (?).

[Defiance]

mina, on 26 June 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

I decided to start a new topic, instead of continuing the discussion of Diane in the other topic of Woods.

I have a great book called The Doors. By The Doors with Ben Fong-Torres (2006). There are a lot of interviews, including from Diane. She tells, that she and Jim had an affair, and Diane was his muse to some verses in L.A. Woman. Diane says, that Morrison wrote and drew often at her place. From time to time Jim lived in the apartment he had rented for Pamela, which located upstairs and Diane lived downstairs.

Diane found some texts, that Jim had written to her notebook. This was found in there "I just got her(e) about an hour ago, Looking around to see which way the wind blows, Where little girls in the Hollywood Bungalows..." We know those verses ended up as a little bit modified to L.A. Woman.

Diane says that she always played blues for Jim and "Into your blues, into your blue, blue, blues" was referring to that. D and P managed to remain friends in spite of the affair. Diane says that when L.A. Woman was published, Pamela said to her "Well, at least there was a one verse for me I see your hair is burning. That's all that existed".

There's also an interview from Michael Ford (Jim's longtime friend, a poet and a radiocommentator). He says, that L.A. Woman is about Los Angeles, but the initial idea to L.A. Woman came from Diane. He got an impression from Jim, that Diane was the secret muse behind that song. She seemed to be a person Jim respected the most, because she didn't care about the fame and the stars.

There are many interesting interviews in the book and there's more about Diane.

(hey, my mother tongue is not english, don't laugh!!)

edit: This book was published in 2006. Is Diane still around? Does anyone know?

Not all songs need a muse, and not even all songs that are about a woman need to necesarrily be based on a specific woman. Woman is woman.

Michael Ford can not state matter of factly that "L.A. Woman is about Los Angeles". What does the word 'about' even mean in regards to songwriting? I would think that a person such as Ford would be more careful with his word choice.

I assure you that English is my native language, and songs are never 'about' anything. Songs can mean something, but they aren't 'about' anything other than being about themselves. They fold in on themselves, like a dream within a dream.

Ford can not know that "the initial idea to L.A. Woman came from Diane", he can only speculate. You yourself even admit that Ford merely got an impression from Jim regarding all of this. Ford's comments are only comments on his own state of mind.

A song comes from God; it then goes into Jim's head, and then onto the paper.

We must ask, what is an 'idea' in regards to L.A. Woman? I don't think that there was one. The song just came about based on the fact that L.A. is where Jim is from and it was what he knew.

A. Los Angeles has existed since 1781. It was became part of Mexico in 1821, then in 1848 it became part of the US along with the state of CA.

B. Woman has existed since God put Adam to sleep, took out one of his ribs, and then made her from said rib.

C. Jim heard Blues in a lot of places, since the late 1940s and early 50s most likely. Jim based all his music on Blues, so there couldn't have been anything new from Diane regardless of if she had a habit of playing certain records.

D. When you say,

Quote

"Diane found some texts, that Jim had written to her notebook. This was found in there "I just got her(e) about an hour ago, Looking around to see which way the wind blows, Where little girls in the Hollywood Bungalows..." ,

I notice that you say 'Jim had written to her notebook'. Such a thing makes no sense. Either, Jim had written to her in her notebook, or Jim had written in her notebook, but not necesarrily to her.

Even if it was the former, and Jim had written these verses to her in her notebook, it doesn't automatically makes the verses about her or somehow for her.

Jim likely 'wrote to her' simply so he would not forget the words and so he would not lose the paper in all of his mess.

It is also possible that Jim came up with those lines before he even met her, but simply had not put them in order until around the time they met.

Sometimes a song is just a song. Looking too far into it can only reveal things about yourself....but it doesn't reval anything about the song or the author.

E. The fact that Pamela assumed that the song was about Diane does not therefore make such assumptions true.

It is disturbing that Pamela would choose to view the song in the way she did (i.e. Jim supposedly choosig to write about Diane instead of her).

Quote

"Pamela said to her "Well, at least there was a one verse for me I see your hair is burning. That's all that existed".

The truth is that Jim did not write verses about anyone. His songs were above and beyond it all.

Edited by Defiance, 26 June 2012 - 08:28 PM.

[mizscarlett43]

queenhwy, on 26 June 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

I knew I read it somewhere and I couldn't remember!  Thanks!

I'm sure she is still around, I just don't know where.

Diane Gardiner died of cancer several years ago. As for her claims about her relationship with Jim, I call bullshit, though I'm not sure if the BS originated with her or with Jim himself--probably some of each.

In any case, with Jim and Pam both long gone by the time she was interviewed for this book, Diane--like her good friend PK before her--was perfectly free to embellish to her little heart's content. Her claim that Jim was hesitant to go to Paris, for instance, is purest rot, as is the idea that she somehow "told him to go," as if she gave him permission or something.

She sounds JUST LIKE PK.

Edited by mizscarlett43, 26 June 2012 - 09:21 PM.

[Defiance]

mizscarlett43, on 26 June 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

Diane Gardiner died of cancer several years ago. As for her claims about her relationship with Jim, I call bullshit, though I'm not sure if the BS originated with her or with Jim himself--probably some of each.

In any case, with Jim and Pam both long gone by the time she was interviewed for this book, Diane--like her good friend PK before her--was perfectly free to embellish to her little heart's content. Her claim that Jim was hesitant to go to Paris, for instance, is purest rot, as is the idea that she somehow "told him to go," as if she gave him permission or something.

She sounds JUST LIKE PK.

Telling someone to go to Paris is not the same as giving permission. If indeed she was the one who told him to go, it would only have been after Jim had brought up the notion of seeking out a heroin source in Paris. Perhaps Jim used code and simply said 'poetic source'. Regardless, that is the reason for his going..... not because some woman in L.A. told him to go.

Jim must have got the idea that Paris=Heroin (the boy) from somewhere else. Cocaine is the female but Jim was way past that.  Once this idea was implanted in Jim, he was on auto-pilot. Diane telling him to go is inconsequential.

Where did this word 'permission' come from though?

Let's get this right.... she claims of a relationship that you admit originated with Jim. Hmmmm..... sounds like they had a relationship, maybe because of the things he did besides sex.

Of course Jim was hesitant to go to Paris!!!! He missed his plane because of said hesitation.

[mizscarlett43]

mizscarlett43, on 26 June 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

Diane Gardiner died of cancer several years ago. As for her claims about her relationship with Jim, I call bullshit, though I'm not sure if the BS originated with her or with Jim himself--probably some of each.

In any case, with Jim and Pam both long gone by the time she was interviewed for this book, Diane--like her good friend PK before her--was perfectly free to embellish to her little heart's content. Her claim that Jim was hesitant to go to Paris, for instance, is purest rot, as is the idea that she somehow "told him to go," as if she gave him permission or something.

She sounds JUST LIKE PK.

I just got off the phone with Salli, who dug out her copy of the book and read Diane's sections herself (she said she hadn't read those parts of the book before).
She agrees with me that Diane greatly exaggerated her role and importance in Jim's life, and just like PK (and Vince Treanor*) before her, turned an Alpha Male--actually I'd characterize Jim as a Super Alpha, a  born leader who would have been dominant in virtually any situation-- into a weak and spineless half-man.
Anyway, Salli's going to try to get online later and add her own comments and insights to this thread.

*I understand Treanor has claimed, among other things, that Jim was "afraid" of Bill Siddons. All anyone has to do is read Bill's section of Feast of Friends to see how ridiculous that is.

Edited by mizscarlett43, 26 June 2012 - 11:30 PM.

[Snowdrop]

Well, I find Michael McClure's recalling to be interesting of Jim between "the showman" and "the real man", once saw Jim crying while Jim expressed "This is the first time I have not been fucked.". Think it was even Michael who described Jim as "shy & quiet" (introverted?)

He was without a doubt a leader, there are though different kind of leaders which enough fail to comprehend and acknowledge. It does not surprise he was more than often the misunderstood kind, when misunderstood some people who could not relate to his leadership qualities, maybe thought it stood for having a half-spine while others even thought "pretentious".

[mizscarlett43]

Snowdrop, on 27 June 2012 - 12:32 AM, said:

Well, I find Michael McClure's recalling to be interesting of Jim between "the showman" and "the real man", once saw Jim crying while Jim expressed "This is the first time I have not been fucked.". Think it was even Michael who described Jim as "shy & quiet" (introverted?)

He was without a doubt a leader, there are though different kind of leaders which enough fail to comprehend and acknowledge. It does not surprise he was more than often the misunderstood kind, when misunderstood some people who could not relate to his leadership qualities, maybe thought it stood for having a half-spine while others even thought "pretentious".

No, they're (PK, Gardiner, Treanor etc.) just cowards who wouldn't have dared make these claims if Jim were still around. ("When the cat's away the mice will play," as the old English proverb goes.)
Here's Bill Siddons from the Unpredictable chapter of A Feast of Friends, Frank Lisciandro's 1982 book:
    

"Personally [Jim] could dominate me anytime he needed to dominate me. But he knew I came to him with what reality was. I couldn't make him do anything, but he would respond to me because he knew I was telling him the truth. He was kinda charmed by that, 'I don't want to embarrass the kid.' So he'd go along with it."

[Snowdrop]

I've never read 'Feast of Friends', nice to see a piece.

Guess there's the possessive kind vs. the rebellious kind, I at least think so. Was Jim dominant in the way of being possessive or was it rebellious? I would like to think it was rebellious, hope so. Think the possessive kind is someone like PK, for me in my mind Jim's always the rebel.

[mizscarlett43]

Snowdrop, on 27 June 2012 - 03:04 AM, said:

I've never read 'Feast of Friends', nice to see a piece.

Guess there's the possessive kind vs. the rebellious kind, I at least think so. Was Jim dominant in the way of being possessive or was it rebellious? I would like to think it was rebellious, hope so. Think the possessive kind is someone like PK, for me in my mind Jim's always the rebel.

Sorry, Nina, but I think we have a language problem here. I'm not sure what you mean by "the possessive kind vs. the rebellious kind," or what that has to do with Jim being an Alpha male, since true Alphas like Jim are secure in their personal power and have no need to throw their weight around.

That was pretty much Bill Siddons' point, that he hadn't tried to bullshit Jim or manipulate him (which was impossible anyway) but had earned Jim's trust by simply being honest with him.

Here's another way to look at it:

Think of Jim as a medieval king surrounded by courtiers--some of whom wheedle and grovel and  lie in an attempt to curry royal favor but snicker at the king behind his back and exaggerate their own importance to him to anyone who will listen;

Whereas others respect, love and trust their monarch (and vice versa) and aren't afraid to tell him when and why they think he's fucking up, because they know he'll take them seriously and not pull rank and start screaming "Off with their heads!!"

Do you understand what I'm trying to say here?

[mina]

All please understand, that I translated those parts from the book from my language to english. Go and borrow or buy the book, if you want to know all the exact words they, Diane and Michael, have said. And I still have to embrace the book. It includes interviews also from Jim's family members and the way the book has been written, it´s genius by Ben Fong-Torres.

Edited by mina, 27 June 2012 - 06:33 AM.

[Snowdrop]

To miz: Could be, I got stuck on the word "domination". Yes, I do understand now very well. Interesting, that it was not domination in the sense of being possessive or rebellious. One's often heard of how he was known for testing people's limits, that after a while one just understood him as rebellious but it ran deeper than this.

[Defiance]

mizscarlett43, on 26 June 2012 - 11:29 PM, said:

I just got off the phone with Salli, who dug out her copy of the book and read Diane's sections herself (she said she hadn't read those parts of the book before).
She agrees with me that Diane greatly exaggerated her role and importance in Jim's life, and just like PK (and Vince Treanor*) before her, turned an Alpha Male--actually I'd characterize Jim as a Super Alpha, a  born leader who would have been dominant in virtually any situation-- into a weak and spineless half-man.
Anyway, Salli's going to try to get online later and add her own comments and insights to this thread.

*I understand Treanor has claimed, among other things, that Jim was "afraid" of Bill Siddons. All anyone has to do is read Bill's section of Feast of Friends to see how ridiculous that is.

Jim was not a born leader. He never joined the military and he never started a gang.

If you acknowledge that Jim was "turned into" a weak man, then you give legitimacy to the notion that such a thing can be done.

Jim would not have been dominant in all situations. Take fighting for example: While Jim may have weighed 185-190 pounds, he wasn't anywhere near the 205 lbs LHW limit that someone needs to be if they truly are to be dominant amoung men.

I am sorry to say, but Jim would have been dominated by Anderson Silva, therefore your argument just died.

Jim may have seemed like a big man to you since you are a woman and therefore are naturally small, but he wasn't really that strong and did not know martial arts, so therefore he would not be dominant in a fight situation.

Alpha male is all about the fight.

We can't say that just because Jim had the strongest voice, that he somehow had the strongest body. He was indeed weak to an extent. Please note that I am not agreeing with you that he was 'turned' into a weak man, but rather that he did it to himself. He was addicted to drugs and alcohol and did not do enough to counteract the effects of constant drinking and smoking. That is not to say that a UFC fighter can't smoke weed and compete at a high level, but Jim did not have the discipline needed in order to keep himself up as a 'in shape drug addict'.

An Alpha male is just an Alpha male (i.e. a role that is played for a certain amount of time), yet you are trying to make it into more than it is. It is like you are putting a fancy pink bow in the Alpha's mane and naming all these pointless things that Jim theoretically could 'dominate' at. All that counts is music though, yet you are reducing music's presence and instead insisting that non-musical pursuits were somehow more important in his life since those pointless pursuits are what supposedly gave Jim his Alpha male status.

Looking past the trees to see the forrest. Let's ignore Jim's music and instead replace it with this macho-Morrison idea.

It didn't matter that Jim was the Alpha (of Rock) since there was no wolf pack for him to lead.

Jim was just a man when you take away all the other stuff. Jim was alone in his artistic pursuit, so no comparrison to others is available. Likewise, he did not run a mile each day and he did not do what needed to be done in order to physically stay in the Alpha male spot.  I think his getting thrown out of the Rock n Roll Circus in Paris is an example of the non-Alpha status of Jim. At that point, Jim was only relying on his worldwide known musical talent to get by since his physical presence no longer represeted the Alpha.

On the other hand, if a young male singer comes along today, he will look towards Jim as the Alpha in terms of music, but no one can look towards Jim in terms of being the head role model of the era or of the genre.

While Jim may have been the Alpha of the arts, he was not Alpha of the jungle.

Jim made his music and established himself from the onset. No other male artist was even able to equal Jim's output.

Therefore, no one was challenging Jim, so thus he could not follow any instincts regarding the Alpha male status. The Alpha within him was in hibernation.

Jim never got the chance to be the Alpha male since Ronnie Van Zandt (Lynyrd Skynyrd) had not yet started to make Rock by the time Jim died.

It would have taken a real Blues man like Van Zandt to even wake Jim up to the point where the two could compete for the Alpha spot. In other words, nothing Mick Jagger was doing would cause Jim to take notice.

P.S. The fact that Jim had a Black bodyguard says a whole lot regarding this issue. To make the case that Jim was the Alpha, it would seem that Jim would have had to have been the bodyguard to a Black singer.

Edited by Defiance, 27 June 2012 - 06:46 PM.

[Defiance]

mizscarlett43, on 27 June 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

Sorry, Nina, but I think we have a language problem here. I'm not sure what you mean by "the possessive kind vs. the rebellious kind," or what that has to do with Jim being an Alpha male, since true Alphas like Jim are secure in their personal power and have no need to throw their weight around.

That was pretty much Bill Siddons' point, that he hadn't tried to bullshit Jim or manipulate him (which was impossible anyway) but had earned Jim's trust by simply being honest with him.

Here's another way to look at it:

Think of Jim as a medieval king surrounded by courtiers--some of whom wheedle and grovel and  lie in an attempt to curry royal favor but snicker at the king behind his back and exaggerate their own importance to him to anyone who will listen;

Whereas others respect, love and trust their monarch (and vice versa) and aren't afraid to tell him when and why they think he's fucking up, because they know he'll take them seriously and not pull rank and start screaming "Off with their heads!!"

Do you understand what I'm trying to say here?

Whatever 'power' Jim had was only the power that God gave him.

A possesive dominance would be the dog who herds other dogs. A rebelious dominance would be a dog who herds horses. On second thought, we could reverse those scenarios and it would still apply. Basically, it is the intent of the dominance. One general may be dominant so that he may protect his own troops, but another general will be dominant in order to kill the opposing troops while giving no thought to the safety of his own men.

True Alphas are subject to the same laws of nature that all others are subjected to. Death finds them too.

Was Jim truly secure? Due to the abuse as an early age, I would say that he never was secure.

If an Alpha wants to 'throw his weight' around, then that is what he will do. There are no rules for that sort of thing. The whole point is that he does what he pleases, and if throwing his weight around is a means to an end, then so be it.

There were plenty of times when 'threw his weight around', like when he threatened Buick.

If Jim was this powerful Alpha that you describe, then he would not have made a threat to Buick.

Jim was not a king and I will not think of him as such.

To imagine people groveling at his feet is to disprepect Morrison. Morrison wouldn't sit there and do all that gay shit.

You think that Jim would put himself in a situation where people would plot to overthrow him? This King fantasy of your's is pretty whack.

It is ok to tell Jim that he 'fucked up'? That is BS. When did Jim ever 'fuck up'? As far as I am concerned, all Jim did was give us great music.

If you are the type of person that would line up in order to tell Jim off, then you are nothing more than a Liberal.

You should know by now that Jim abhorred court and thus would not carry out such activity by choice... and certainly not in his own home.

Jim never did 'fuck up', so therefore if anyone said such a thing to him, it would only be out of jealousy. 'Fucked up' things were done to Morrison, but he didn't bring it about.

I don't think you understand that Jim would not be a King who himself is accountable to others. Don't forget that the King gets his own head chopped off when he oppresses his people just as a King will chop off the head of one of his subjects.

If anything, Jim would be the medieval traveler, roaming the lands and collecting opium.

Edited by Defiance, 27 June 2012 - 07:33 PM.

[Defiance]

Snowdrop, on 27 June 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

To miz: Could be, I got stuck on the word "domination". Yes, I do understand now very well. Interesting, that it was not domination in the sense of being possessive or rebellious. One's often heard of how he was known for testing people's limits, that after a while one just understood him as rebellious but it ran deeper than this.

There is no need to abandon the idea. It is important to differentiate between Psychological vs Physical dominance.

We see it all the time in the UFC. Bigger is not always better. More muscles often equate to a slower fighter since those extra muscles need oxygen. For instance, Junior Dos Santos only weighed in 239 lbs, yet he is the champ and his opponents are all bigger than him by 20 lbs. JDS sacrificed size for agility. JDM sacrificied refined musical theory for the raw ability to spit out Blues.

Physicality is not the only way to dominate, just as psychology is not to be dismissed.

Chael Sonnen vs Spider Silva in their July 7th rematch is a fight between these two forms of dominance. Sonnen is more physical, but Silva is all mental. Silva's mentality is that he can retire Sonnen. The question is, does victory rely on one's mentality?

Jim Morrison had the mentality that what he was making was acceptable to God. He was making music for a purpose higher than human entertainment. While Mick Jagger was worrying about what Lennon was doing, Jim was oblivious to the rest of his piers.

While Jim could not physically dominate anyone other than those smaller British Invaders (i.e. Burdon, Jones, Lennon), he could easily dominate through mental toughness.

It is telling that Eric Burdon fired a pistol above Jim's head and shot out the glass chandelier during that incident at Burdon's mansion. Jim could easily have fought with Eric over such a thing, but he instead quietly packed his things and just left. Jim had been defeated.

Edited by Defiance, 27 June 2012 - 07:27 PM.

[queenhwy]

mizscarlett43, on 26 June 2012 - 11:29 PM, said:

I just got off the phone with Salli, who dug out her copy of the book and read Diane's sections herself (she said she hadn't read those parts of the book before).
She agrees with me that Diane greatly exaggerated her role and importance in Jim's life, and just like PK (and Vince Treanor*) before her, turned an Alpha Male--actually I'd characterize Jim as a Super Alpha, a  born leader who would have been dominant in virtually any situation-- into a weak and spineless half-man.
Anyway, Salli's going to try to get online later and add her own comments and insights to this thread.

*I understand Treanor has claimed, among other things, that Jim was "afraid" of Bill Siddons. All anyone has to do is read Bill's section of Feast of Friends to see how ridiculous that is.

I understand the disgust with PK, but what's the story with Vince Treanor?  He seems like a legit guy.  His stories are interesting.  I think that everyone has their
own perspective regarding their time with Jim Morrison.  Everyone's take is different and I think that makes it special.  Jim seemed to leave everyone with unforgettable memories and a bit shaken with his behavior.  He sure seems to be so memorable to everyone who's  path he crossed!

Just curious, that's all...

[*~adrienne~*]

mizscarlett43, on 27 June 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

Sorry, Nina, but I think we have a language problem here. I'm not sure what you mean by "the possessive kind vs. the rebellious kind," or what that has to do with Jim being an Alpha male, since true Alphas like Jim are secure in their personal power and have no need to throw their weight around.

That was pretty much Bill Siddons' point, that he hadn't tried to bullshit Jim or manipulate him (which was impossible anyway) but had earned Jim's trust by simply being honest with him.

Here's another way to look at it:

Think of Jim as a medieval king surrounded by courtiers--some of whom wheedle and grovel and  lie in an attempt to curry royal favor but snicker at the king behind his back and exaggerate their own importance to him to anyone who will listen;

Whereas others respect, love and trust their monarch (and vice versa) and aren't afraid to tell him when and why they think he's fucking up, because they know he'll take them seriously and not pull rank and start screaming "Off with their heads!!"

Do you understand what I'm trying to say here?

Janet (and Salli too) you both told Jim when you thought he was fucking up and I know that's why he kept you in his life until the very end. Back then everyone was telling Jim what he wanted to hear and stroking his ego and these two broads kept it real. I'm sure towards the end of his life he could count on maybe two hands the number of real friends he had...isn't that sad in retrospect...Diane sounds like a milder version of PK...I'll keep an open mind until I read the book...who is Vince Treanor? Never heard of him. Learn something new everyday.

[queenhwy]

*~adrienne~*, on 30 June 2012 - 01:58 AM, said:

Janet (and Salli too) you both told Jim when you thought he was fucking up and I know that's why he kept you in his life until the very end. Back then everyone was telling Jim what he wanted to hear and stroking his ego and these two broads kept it real. I'm sure towards the end of his life he could count on maybe two hands the number of real friends he had...isn't that sad in retrospect...Diane sounds like a milder version of PK...I'll keep an open mind until I read the book...who is Vince Treanor? Never heard of him. Learn something new everyday.

Vince was the Doors road manager.  He was in charge of their equipment and such.  Google him.  He has his own forum and tells stories about his time with the band.

I like to read and hear all of Jim Morrisons friends/lovers/bandmates, etc. stories.  Except for pk!

[Pedro Kazit]

Hey Adrienne, queenhyw talk: "in Google more and more news about Treanor". Posted this 2 known photos of Treanor:
-with Jim:  http://24.media.tumb...dftj301_500.jpg
-lonely:  http://www.thefreedo...incetreanor.JPG