Commentary on the Brandy section of Luke's book
voya...@ix.netcom.com
bra...@kamikaze.xxx (Brandy Alexandre) wrote:
<major snippage>
> Here goes:
>
> > ...stands 5'2" with natural
> > blonde hair and green eyes.
> 5'3",
hmmmm, at least he got the "emerald eyes" right!
scottmcf
So, Hustler Porn Star Interviews made up a story about non-consentual
anal sex?
BTW, anyone who says that Brandy is "ugly" or "only working because she
showed up" is fooling themselves. I remember her heyday, and she was
quite well-known to porn consumers and generally considered to be really
hot. Tapes were built around her; she was a porn "star". (Among other
things, she had an incredible big round ass).
Brandy Alexandre wrote:
>
> After my last few posts re Luke's ineptitude about facts, porn, writing,etc.,
> I have been adequately cajoled into attempting to post corrects admittedly
> against my better judgment. The following is a commentary and falls underthe
> copyright laws of the United States and international treaties and cannotbe
> reprinted without the permission of the author -- Me.
>
> Here goes:
>
> > ...stands 5'2" with natural
> > blonde hair and green eyes. A regular on
> > Porn's Most Ugly lists, she looks like
> > Gorgette on the Mary Tyler Moore show.
>
> 5'3", and only appeared one time on the ugly list in a single newsgroupamid
> a flame war. Hyperbole.
>
[rest of original post snipped by MOD]
>
> Brandy Alexandre
> http://kamikaze.org
> ***
> To e-mail remove the "xxx" from my address and add "org."
> Sorry for the inconvenience.
> ***
LUZDEDOS
I generally avoid commenting on Brandy and replying to her posts. I do not
want to dignify them. This time I'll make an exception.
It should be obvious to most readers of rame that Brandy loathes me and my
writing. I do not reciprocate this feeling. She is a woman of wit,
intelligence and many other talents. Life is short, however, and so the
number of persons I allow to affect me are not infinite. Brandy plays
almost no role in my life or writing. I don't even mention her in my
latest draft of my history of porn that I sent to publisher. Her chief
significance, IMHO, is in her status as a trailblazing ex-performer on the net.
As soon as I came on the web in December, 1996, I was pleasantly surprised
to recieve a stinging email from her. I then immediately sent her all my
notes that I had on her, to see if they were accurate. I received no reply
to them in specific. Only derision.
I've tried several times since then to forward my writings on her to her,
but she has refused to reply. She refuses an interview. This makes it
difficult for me to fully capture her perspective and to correct allegations.
Whenever I find that I've written someting incorrect, I correct it, and
frequently, apologize.
For the incorrect things I've written about Brandy, I apologize mainly to
her, and secondly to my readers.
I do think that most people would judge my few pages on Miss Alexander to
be fair. Judge for yourself at
http://members.aol.com/luzdedos/index32.html
I find it distasteful to judge her looks. It is fair, it seems to me, that
she frequently is not viewed as among the more attractive performers of her
time.
> > "I told him I felt rowdy and might do an anal.
> > So we start to do the scene, and I whisper in
> > his ear, "Sorry Buck, no." We were doing it
> > doggy style, and he pulled out and went in
> > the other hole. And I said "You move
> > another fraction of an inch and you're dead."
> > He says, "Just another minute, just another
> > minute." (Hustler Porn Star Interviews 1991)
>
> Fabrication by the magazine from which this section is illegally borrowed.
>Never said that; it is not true. Luke doesn't bother with fact checking or
>consulting the standard "three sources" to confirm information.
I sent this to Brandy several times and she chose not to answer.
This all touches on the general question, far beyond Brandy and I, if a
person is likely to be the most accurate source of information about
himself. I think not. Some people are honest and have a fair sense of self.
At least as many do not.
Many people who think themselves ugly are attractive, and many who are
vein, are ugly. Many people who think themselves articulate are windy, and
many who think themselves inarticulate, are articulate.
I'm highly skeptical of what people say about themselves and what people
say about other people. I'm skeptical in general about humanity.
That Brandy denies certain things/facts about her, may indicate that these
allegations are not true, or it may not. I won't declare judgement on how
accurate a perception Brandy has of herself and how much of a truth teller
she is. My guess is that she is more accurate than most of us.
> > Margold and Jim Holliday, I have never seen
> > such a deep-seated NEED, absolute
> > ADDICTION to being known... She
> > approaches the endless flame-wars of the
> > Internet with a vehemance and persistence
> > that you can never match. It's pathological.
The author of that note may be wrong, but he represents a commonly held
view of Brandy, Bill and Jim, perhaps THE most commonly held view.
Whatever my problems with the above persons, I wish them, especially
Brandy, nothing but the best.
Which leads to my apology to Nena Cherry and my frequent apologies. I
believe that my primary job as a writer on porn is to tell the truth. That
is my foremost responsibility. In so doing, however, I wound many people. I
feel bad about doing that, but it is inevitable. That I apologize and
empathize with those I've hurt, does not mean that I necessarily take back
what I've written, unless I explicitly take back what I have written.
If I presided over a small grocery store and had to lay off or fire a
clerk, I might feel bad about it, but still have to do it. I feel bad to
the degree I've caused hurt to Brandy, Nena Cherry, etc... I take back
those things I've written that are inaccurate. I do not take back those
things that are accurate, even if they caused pain. But I still empathize
with those I've hurt, even as I continue in an endeavor that will cause
more pain to more people.
Cheers, Luke Ford
For 100 years of sex in cinema, go to:
http://www.lukeford.com
http://members.aol.com/luzdedos
http://members.aol.com/smuller448
http://members.aol.com/dedosluz
Mark Kernes
scottmcf wrote:
>
> So, Hustler Porn Star Interviews made up a story about non-consentual
> anal sex?
>
"standard" model release I've seen explicitly gives the release owner
the power to make up any damn thing they want about the photos they've
purchased, with little or no regard for the facts.
Just thought you'd want to know...
Mark Kernes, AVN
Mark Kernes
Brandy Alexandre wrote:
>
>
> > AVN staff groan when they see Brandy's
> > name or return address on an envelope as
> > they are deluged by letters from the feisty
> > blonde complaining about inadequate or
> > inaccurate coverage of her.
>
> Deluged? As I recall I've written them a total of 5 letters. Some were
> meant in fun, as the one about being misidentified, and was taken as just
> that. You're making things up about which you know nothing. Just becauseI
> wrote one letter does not mean I wrote hundreds.
Since I was one of the three in-house employees at AVN when the
referenced letters were written (the other two being publisher Paul
Fishbein, who rarely looked at ReaderSpeak letters, and editor-in-chief
Gene Ross), and since I typed the letters that were printed into the
letter column, let me state publicly that I had no problems with any of
Brandy's letters. I (and Gene) didn't always agree with her views - in
fact, I'm sure there are areas where I (and probably Gene) still don't,
but we never asked her not to write them, never told her she was
pestering us with her letters, and each received the same consideration
(if not a bit moreso) as any other correspondent.
Just more bad reporting on Luke's part...
Mark Kernes, AVN
PS: Hope I haven't violated your copyright by this post. If so, I
apologize and will not do it again, and hope you can excuse this error.
- MK
oct...@idirect.com
On 19 Sep 1997 06:30:54 -0400, bra...@kamikaze.xxx (Brandy Alexandre)
wrote:
> Obviously I have edited this for length. I hope this clears i up for
>everyone who expressed a curiosity as to why I keep saying Luke's book is
>fictional tabloid crap.
Clear as mud.
Gary Lloyd
In article <rame.875010605p13253@bash>, LUZDEDOS <luzd...@aol.com> wrote:
>I generally avoid commenting on Brandy and replying to her posts. I do not
>want to dignify them. This time I'll make an exception.
>It should be obvious to most readers of rame that Brandy loathes me and my
>writing. I do not reciprocate this feeling. She is a woman of wit,
>intelligence and many other talents. Life is short, however, and so the
>number of persons I allow to affect me are not infinite. Brandy plays
>almost no role in my life or writing. I don't even mention her in my
>latest draft of my history of porn that I sent to publisher. Her chief
>significance, IMHO, is in her status as a trailblazing ex-performer on
>the net.
>
I think your comments about Brandy are generally correct, except that
the swipe at her looks was uncalled for. Actually, the woman is stunning,
or at least she was; but then, it's all a matter of taste, isn't it? But
to continue... This female is a looker, an exceptionally well-put together
woman, who can blow your typical Barbi Doll pornster out of the water any
day of the week.
Her problem, of course, is she wants to be elite about an industry that's
one of the lowest ones around. Just the other day I read Mike South's brag
about talking some co-ed into fucking in front of the camera. He
laughingly tells us the girl told him she's getting married in two weeks.
This was a dumb chick, sure, but how can respect an industry that thrives
on taking advantage of people like her?
Then comes Brandy who looks down her nose at any one who hasn't fucked in
front of a camera but has the nerve to utter anything at all about porn.
There's no way of appeasing her. Don't waste your time.
--
Ins. of Piscatology & Advanced Autophobic Studies
1600 Pennsylvania Ave
Wash, DC
Gary Lloyd
Publisher
New Fishwrapper Times
Hart Williams
In article <rame.874475112p14280@bash>, bra...@kamikaze.xxx (Brandy Alexandre)
says:
<snip>
>Ah, Hart Williams. Well, we know all about him. He's not a psychologist,
>plus he was defrocked as a porn non-entity in front of everyone and hasn't
>let it go.
<snip>
Defrocked?
Sorry, BA, but I always kept my clothes on. :) But, since
we're living in glass houses...
>Well, we know all about him.<
What? You have a tapeworm?
I was talking to another veteran -- a cameraman of 20 years'
service in the Biz, who's shot for Goldstein, Spinnelli, for
Holmes, for ... well, you name it. There are very few people
he HASN'T worked with in the biz.
We were catching up on old times a few weeks ago ("That farting
thing Jerry used to do with his back on the floor is STILL called
"pulling a Butler.")
He screeched astonishment when he heard that Bill Margold was
on the 'net, and I started to explain about Brandy, the self-
styled Queen of Porn.
"Who?" he asked.
"You know. She moved in after Drea moved out, and before
Viper showed up."
"That one?!!!?" he snorted, after thinking about it for a
couple of minutes. "She was a non-ENTITY! She was a
NOBODY!"
True enough, I agreed, but she spends all her waking hours
on the 'net trying to convince people that she was a big
SomeBody. Maybe one day she'll succeed. But the fact in
the Bix remains that Ms. Alexander was, at best, a footnote
as an actor -- * perhaps the only actress in the business
who ever slept her way INto a role.
Or, as Annette Haven once told me: "I fuck on screen. If they
think I'm going to sleep with anyone to GET a role, they
have to be out of their minds."
Brandy never took this sage advice.
Of course, being a porn non-entity, I never interviewed
Ms. Haven, just as I never wrote screenplays for John Holmes,
or edited HUSTLER's film review section.
People who live in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones, Brandy.
Hart Williams
http://www.efn.org/~hartw/index.html
Member, National Writers Union, AFL-CIO
Member, National Book Critics Circle
An Excite 4-star site * A Magellan 4-star site
Nick Long
Not only is that a part of our standard release for Spotlight Video and
Private Sessions, it also includes the approval to modify, morph,
distort, etc, etc, any image we choose. We don't often do it, but it
does protect us when a photo has to be altered to - say - cut out the
face of someone else, or a bad background, changing the original context
of the photo.