Quote... Or Not.

I just read Miles' passage on the separation of the first Mothers of Invention band (p. 185 and later).

I must say that I am quite perplex regarding the situation. It seems that it left everyone bitter towards Zappa. I first wanted to quote the passage, since it is quite self-explanatory, but it would almost be a matter of copy/pasting 2 or 3 pages... Might as well read the whole thing from the book itself!

Anyhow, from what we know today, I think it is easy to understand the band's feelings regarding Zappa. But my comment will not be on these feelings per se. Because what I sense from the conflict is more than a question of "who did this to whom and for what motive"... 

Now this is just what I perceived from my readings and research (and is merely simply an opinion), but it feels that it is impossible to get an impartial view of the conflict, which gives it an even bigger dramatic proportion. On one side, you have Zappa, on the other, the frustrated band members. But there's also a third party: the writer. I will take Miles as an example since he's the primal reading material we have to do for the course. 

What I mean by a "third party" is that you can sense that Miles does not take an objective point of view when he writes about the conflict. But it is also impossible to know on what side he is truly on. 

The few pages relating the separation are filled with quotes of Zappa and Jimmy Carl Black. Miles (who I'm guessing chose the quotes) exposes the worst in both, creating an instant debate between everyone's argument. Why would he do such a thing? Why would he accentuate a conflict by purposely showing the selfish side of Zappa and the greediness of Black? Did he do that to highlight the conflict? To present it as a lost cause that was fated to end this way? Or does he rather want to make a "greater" comment on  the characters, like destroying a legend?

From what I've read so far, I think it is obvious that Miles is not trying to adulate the character of Zappa. Without saying he's constantly critical, he sure sees the good and the bad in everything he did, adding his little "grain de sel" to the persona. His thesis seems to be centered around this duality and he wants to prove it to the reader, at any cost. He accentuates the "dark side" of Zappa in situations relating his control freak attitude, his strict anti-drug policy, and his general lack of interest in interpersonal relationships. These rather negative views can be founded on true events, but do clash with the over-all biographical tone of the book. 

I'm not trying to say that Zappa was a perfect man, gifted with incredible musical talent... First, we all know perfection does not exist. Second, we also know that Zappa had the career he had mainly because of his focused (one could say authoritanist) attitude towards work. But my problem is not on the man himself. It is rather on who has the authority to judge another. I think you can relate the truth of an individual's life (the good and the bad) without imposing your judgement on the reader - or without subtly adding hidden opinions which could lead to such an interpretation... I think Miles is so focused on imposing the truth (or destroying the 'perfect' myth of Zappa) that it transcend too much in his book. 

The problem with that is the following: ultimately, instead on focusing on Zappa's true flaws, I tend to focus on Miles' opinions on such flaws...