Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Paul Watkins Adam magazine interview

This interview doesn't contain any startling revelations except, perhaps, the original title of Paul Watkins book but it does have some great unseen pictures of Paul.  Written by Guillermo Soledad, Watkins soon to be co-author, for Adam Magazine November 1978.












44 comments:

Max Frost said...

Paul never really got off of his "Second-in-command" trip.

Matt said...

Had that book been successful it would have given him a good start in life financially. 2nd in command was his ticket I guess.

Max Frost said...

Great article though.

Thanks Deb for the good score.

The majority of what Paul says is insightful and right on.

"Charles Manson was a powerful person who lost his positive energies to demons, then set those demons loose."

He says many other things that make the same point:

The whole scene started out as something beautiful - something perfect and harmonious. Something highly spiritual.

It EVENTUATED into something dark and desperate, and incoherent. But it didnt start that way - and Manson wasn't plotting or premeditating the direction it went.

He lost it along the way. He wasnt the only one. Obviously they all lost it, or most of them anyway.

That's a lot more realistic than painting a picture of a sociopathic madman who lured all those people into a web of destruction and murder.

It happened. It was a phenomenon. It's the ultimate symbol of balance between good and evil.

For all the evil that gets projected on Manson and the outcome, so should there be equal emphasis on the GOOD that preceded the bad and evil that made this case so famous.

We'll never get to the truth of the story by clinging to the lowest common denominator of impulses: To label and blame and see things as totally one-sided.

Marlene Ful said...

I love this site it digs up everything that is out there.I love when Paul and Brooke sang together.If anyone was second in command I would say it was Gypsy she seemed to be the one that most of them looked up to after Manson was inside.

AustinAnn74 said...

Standing up, and showing your starfish to the crowd would of been my ticket out. No way!
:-)

Panamint Patty said...

Guillermo Soledad is the nom due plume of someone on the faculty of the English Dept at UCSB. Any coincidence that Dianne Lake was there about the same time? Patty doesn't know. But she has always wondered who Guillermo really is/was.

Matt said...

AustinAnn74 said...

Standing up, and showing your starfish to the crowd would of been my ticket out. No way!


The boy-on-boy part would have had me running away right past you!

Doc Sierra said...

AustinAnn74 said...

Standing up, and showing your starfish to the crowd would of been my ticket out. No way!
---------------------------
Starfish is offensive. I prefer balloon knot..... lol

orwhut said...

The asking price for Paul's book at Amazon.com is now between $95.00 and $900.00. I don't guess it hurts to ask.

AustinAnn74 said...

Hahaha!!!

AustinAnn74 said...

Not that there's anything wrong with that! (Seinfeld)
Haha...

DebS said...

It's been a few years since I read Paul's book. The copy I read was borrowed, not only that the person I borrowed it from had checked out a library copy and photocopied the whole book. So it really was just a photo copy that I read! And I had to return it!!

Patty I'd never considered that Guillermo Soledad was a penname. I googled the author and they had written only the one book so your probably right about that. This will drive me nuts until someone definitively learns Soledad's true name!

Panamint Patty said...

If anyone can find it, Deb, you can!

Doc Sierra said...

I had a copy of Watkins' book that I found in a used book store back in the 90s. I think I paid maybe $2 or $3 for it. I wasn't making much money at that time so I sold it on Ebay. I think I got around $200 for it. I regret my decision to sell it to this day.....

Panamint Patty said...

How did Patty get hers so cheap? Prolly someone who didn't know what they had. She recalls spending about $14 for it.

St. Circumstance said...

Hey ALL :)

Dont worry Suze and Cindy- I am not staying just dropped in to say hell to a few friends...

Hello lol

Deb- I would bet my last buck you get to the bottom of it ;)

Max- I really liked your first post yesterday. very clever. Using quotes or explanations at the top, then writing with a tone of humor and sending a shout out to Cielo is a formula which looks kind of familiar- but hey a very wise man once told me that imitation is the greatest form of flattery.Double spacing between your comments is a nice touch too.

Now if you could only be this handsome lol

but I do have one question for you to answer or ignore and I will read it and let you have the last word. I cant stay long - they wont validate my parking any more :)

You came into my life very rudely telling me how wrong I am about the motive POSSIBLY being H/S. you told me that it is all propaganda and lies..

In 3 weeks I have waited to hear your better idea- but still nothing except a post about coincidences. Interesting post really- I honestly liked it.

So.. can I point out to you in your own words above you state that:

" The majority of what Paul says is insightful and right on.

"Charles Manson was a powerful person who lost his positive energies to demons, then set those demons loose."

He says many other things that make the same point:

The whole scene started out as something beautiful - something perfect and harmonious. Something highly spiritual.

It EVENTUATED into something dark and desperate, and incoherent. But it didnt start that way - and Manson wasn't plotting or premeditating the direction it went."


Well I just thought it would be fair to mention that Paul Watkins had an explanation for what made things go from good to bad, and he said it on film to Hendrickson the man you swear by...

" After Charlie got on his Helter skelter trip"

" before that it was all about fucking"

his words to your guy...

Paul Watkins said things changed due to the influence of Helter Skelter.

and in your words ( double spaced much like mine lol) you say the majority of what Paul says is insightful and right on....

??????

If you want to show me how much your 20 years of research has meant you should probably start coming up with some real information and facts, and quit talking out both sides of your ....

I am pretty smart guy and you can bet I am reading and fact checking every thing that you have to say...

being loud and obnoxious is only part of the charm- if you want to be me you need to know what the hell your talking about as well...

good luck new blood lol

See the rest of you soon

xoxox





Panamint Patty said...

Hi ST. Patty is well aware that you don't like Max. He has no such issue with you. He did not say he was going to solve the case in three weeks: you are a smart guy and you have been at it for years, after all. What has been going on ever since is just sabre rattling and territorialism. Patty is sorry you got your feelings hurt. Back to business now?

Max Frost said...

Why thank you St. for "honestly" liking my post.

But I got news for you, and maybe you haven't heard this yet...

You did not invent double spacing. It is actually very common.

Are you sure you want to take credit for that?

I don't know you and I don't know anything about you. I've never read any of your posts - I haven't been here long enough to.

I just took a look at your "Examining Fairness" article and I see no similarities between the way you wrote that and the way I wrote "Coincidences."

So I REALLY don't know what you are talking about.

You may be a lover but you aint no dancer...

If you wanna dance with me, show me some good moves. Entice me.

Accusing me of imitating you is not a good move. It makes you look desperate and without ammunition.

You said:
"If you want to show me how much your 20 years of research has meant you should probably start coming up with some real information and facts, and quit talking out both sides of your ...."

Incidentally, St., I'm not obliged, nor do I "want" to show you anything - especially in response to your approach here.

You are just creating more fodder for the lonely lunatics to chew on and spit out on that "whack chat."

Who knows, maybe that's your primary motive here.

Either way, enjoy happy hour and don't say anything you will regret later. Go easy on yourself.

Suze said...

Doc Sierra said...

Starfish is offensive. I prefer balloon knot..... lol

------------------

I prefer "cinnamon ring". LMAO!!!

St. Circumstance said...

Max I am not going to fight with you.

I all ask again- how do you reconcile Watkins saying that the mood at the ranch changed as a result of H/S ??

do you have any theory that makes more sense or can be proven to any extent at all- and if not how can you trash people for saying something else is possible?

and one last question which is more personal to me- as far as who can't be trusted here...

if you don't know me and haven't read any of my posts then how could you have known and made the comment about me saying I was leaving and then coming back in the past?? when you were inviting Grump back and suggesting leary and I stay gone- you said I had done this before???

either you have read my posts enough to know that or someone was planting that negative thought in your head about me before any of these hard feelings even broke out...

Max I have nothing against you or anyone else personally, and that is why I have been able to float from site to site and get along with all kinds of people who hate each other...

you directed negative comments to me twice before I ever said a word to you and the first time I made a joke saying you were right...

You have decided to make yourself the new authority around here and that's o.k with me if they want that- I have no plans to come around here more often than it takes to say hello to the few people who email me and ask for me.

But you have yet to answer any real questions or offer any real ideas and in the case today you just flat out contradicted yourself...

My primary motive has always been to find out if there really is more to than this case, and it still is and if you know it then you will be someone I look up to forever.... but after 7 years of my own research I haven't seen proof of anything besides helter skelter. I am willing to accept that maybe there is not more. that is open minded and it seems to enrage you and some others- at least it caused you to insult me before we even had said hello. But whereas I love a good rumor or thoery as much as the next guy- I have looked into most of them and there has not been one small flicker where I thought there was smoke. should I ignore my own mind ears and eyes because Max says I am silly and a fool? Max who I never had heard a thing from, and who offers nothing but rude condensation as far as alternatives?

It is going to be easy to skate past me when everyone is taking your side- but at some point it is going to become obvious what you really know, and so far nothing would be a very fair appraisal.

at least I haven't seen one solid lead or idea presented. you have shot down a few- but not countered with your own yet. thats the hard part- putting yourself out there for others to take shots. If all you do is point out the others flaws- your safe- but not interesting really in my humble opinion.

I really did think it was a clever post though... lol I smiled when I read it.

My feelings are just fine thanks, and your welcome for covering the vacations, weekends away or any of the other times you asked for help. If you thought that I should not keep coming back you shouldn't have kept asking me for help- but to get some new guy to sling your shots for you is pretty petty and whoever did that should be ashamed...

especially the one or two of you who had to be behind it as much as I have taken up for you over the years- it could have been handled better...

Now I am leaving- please go back to discussing Debs excellent post- I dont want to take any more away from her good work...

all the best to all of you and here is hoping we all can behave a little better in the future.

I have no ill will- and Max I promise if it turns out you have anything at all to offer- I will say so wherever I am talking about this case. I didn't think you could solve it in three weeks- but the way you came on I was sure you would offer something...

I guess time will tell...

maybe your pacing yourself lol

Peace guys/gals

Doc Sierra said...

Thanks a lot Suze. I'll never be able to eat a cinnamon swirl again without laughing.

Heidi S said...

I would LOVE to read Paul's book. Anybody know where to get a copy for less than $200?

Panamint Patty said...

There is no "new regime." There are no sides to be taken. How much more clearly can Patty state it? You people don't need a blog you need a babysitter. Grow the fuck up, now. Patty is tired of these silly schoolyard games. Take your ball and your bat, and go to your room for a time out.

Cielodrive.Com said...

Heidi, do you have a kindle or ipad?

Panamint Patty said...

Also Colonel has some of the chapters if not all of them at his place.

ColScott said...

Max
The problem with St is that I think he is schizo- fawning and aw shucks one minute then butthurt the next.

Your point is clear. Helter Skelter is not the motive. Quoting Paul, who tried to take over the Family, as an authority, is moronic.

St's a poodle, a dabbler. Don't let him rile you.

Max Frost said...

You can order a COPY of the book very cheap at http://www.aes-nihil.com/

It's not the actual book but a xerox.

Max Frost said...

St.,

Your comments are way too long to respond to in detail without somehow highlighting everything you say, and answering paragraph by paragraph.

I don't know if I'm missing out on some blog tools here, but there doesn't seem to be a way of using italics or bold while leaving comments.

I'm still fairly new to this. Am I missing something?

Bueller?

Jason said...

Thanks, guys! I will do some more searching. Paul was a super interesting guy. Also, he was kinda hot. :)

Jason said...

That last post was from Heidi, not Jason. Sorry! Someone never signs out of gmail...

Matt said...

Heidi, you might want to take a closer look at this guy you married :)

Chris Till said...

I too have unsuccessfully tried to figure out who "Guillermo Soledad" really is. Perhaps this site should appoint a task force or committee (or sub-committee) to investigate! First clue is to find an old UCSB yearbook (or staff directory, etc) from the mid-1970s...

Matt said...

Matt appoints Chris Till to form the committee and execute the investigation.

Kimchi said...

Hi Patty -

Guillermo Soledad is a psudo for William Lewis..

You can find it here at the online Copyright search:

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=soledad+guillermo&Search_Code=NALL&PID=h73IAO7GzonRAIN3S2Hlefl1sJ9f&SEQ=20130626112359&CNT=25&HIST=1

Kimchi said...

Oops, I should have included the link to UC Santa Barbara Alumni -

http://www.ucsbalum.com/newsevents/notable/authorsbooks

However, My Life with CM is not listed in his Bio

DebS said...

Thanks for finding that Kimchi! :)

Matt said...

Yes, Kimchi. Thank you. We appreciate that. One less thing for us to do. LOL.

Panamint Patty said...

Kimchi! Patty misses you when you're gone. Thanks for the tip!

sherm maniac said...

"Also Colonel has some of the chapters if not all of them at his place."

The Col has all the chapters of Paul's book on his blog. You can find them through Google, type "My Life with Charles Manson Chapter the first" for the first one, then "chapter the second" and so on for the rest. I'm sure most know this, but for those who don't... this is Groovy!!

Reading Paul's book is an eye-opener. It's self-serving in a lot of ways, and the guy clearly had issues in needing to hop from one manipulative guru (Manson) to another (Old Man Prospector, forget his name). But it has a lot of detail on day-to-day life in The Family, and it really emphasises how appealing the Family philosophy was in the beginning. Hell, it made me want to join...

sherm maniac said...

One thing that struck me in Little Paul's book was the "facial sores" thing. He writes that as the Family became more brain-washed and drug-addled they all started getting these gross weeping pustules sprouting on their faces. He explains this was because of all the Evil they were committing, it had super-serious negative physical side-effects yo.

My opinion on this highly important yet strangely over-looked aspect of the Manson Saga: living in filth, gobbling drugs and eating garbage could maybe be bad for your skin. That or Paul's ghost-writer needed to insert a piece of highly obvious symbolism to really get across how naughty-yucky these crazy kids were. Weeping pustules? Gross! Better stay in school and keep away from bearded hep-talkin' gurus.

Kimchi said...

You're welcome...

@ Patty - "Speech is Silver, but Silence is Golden" (wink wink)

@ Matt - It took about 45 sec, yeah, so much going on with TLB, (yawn) I know you're busy...

@ Deb - You're my idol...

My mother-in-law said I was a smart-ass with no sense of humor...I think she nailed it... ;-)

brownrice said...

I always thought the most interesting thing in Watkins' book was the bit where he talks about being approached by what appeared to be a mob lawyer just before the trial. He was put up in a swanky hotel for a couple of days while they asked him various questions about Charlie & the gang... he never said what the questions were though :-)

fiona1933 said...

He's a cutie

fiona1933 said...

When you watch the Manson Gang film, it does seem like Paul is kind of running things a bit.