Patricia Kennealy-Morrison - FAQ 9

But doesn't all this sort of thing hurt?

---

Sure, at first it did; very much indeed. In fact, it damn near killed me,

You were almost killed by people saying, "No, she didn't marry Jim Morrison, and she definitely wasn't his soulmate"? You're a lightweight.

And since she's tried to insist that she was quiet for the better part of two decades and only spoke up after the Doors movie, how did it almost kill her "at first"?


and since it's obviously never gonna end, it may yet.

Last time I checked, "people doubting you on the Internet" is not a fatal condition.




It has been exactly how I had thought it would be, and it's why I kept so silent so long through so much: the grim knowledge that evil bastards frantically protecting their lies and self-interest and blood-money profits would start shooting at me the minute I opened my mouth, the far worse knowledge that if once I started talking about Jim I would never stop crying.

1. Most of the people who don't buy her story or her self-promotion as the Lizard Queen are not "protecting" anything, let alone profits or lies or "self-interest."
2. They simply don't believe her.
3. Once again, I have to wonder if she's slagging off other writers who have produced books on Morrison over the years, since she claims they are all lying about her and hiding her true status out of misogynistic evil Pamela-worship.
4. You know... those books she was interviewed for.
5. And the books by the Doors, who presumably saw Morrison a lot more than she did and knew more about his overall life.
6. Ignore them! They're all liars! Only believe her!
7. And ignore those previous interviews she gave before Strange Days! That was Oliver Stone's evil Patricia-lookalike robot, sent to spread lies! LIES!

I was right on both counts: They did, and I never will. But I was a target anyway, and I was weeping anyway...

I'd honestly feel sorrier for her if A) I wasn't pretty sure that she's exaggerating or lying about most aspects of her relationship, and B) she didn't have such seething, acidic hate for everyone who doesn't instantly believe everything she says. It's hard for me to muster pity for someone who is so unpleasant that she would treat others just as badly, IF NOT WORSE.


And then I saw what was really going on, the mindless meritless nature of those who were doing the hurting--and I moved past it forever. They may never stop shooting at me, but I will never stop talking about Jim. And I will never stop shooting back, either.

So she's totally moved past them, so there... but she's also throwing back her own little barbs at them and everything they say. Sounds suspiciously like she's moved past nothing.


That which does not kill us really does make us stronger (thanks, Friedrich!);

Is it weird that it doesn't surprise me that she's a Nietzsche fan?


just think how strong I must be by now.

Well, since she still takes mortal offense at anyone suggesting online that Pamela was his main squeeze... as strong as single-ply toilet paper.


But it's more like `That which does not kill us we will hunt down and destroy'...

See what I mean? She is ranting about hunting down and destroying people who dare to doubt that she was Jim Morrison's wife. Why should I feel pity for such a person?


People like that don't ever win--you give them their victories by allowing them to get to you;

Well, congratulations for giving them lots and lots of victories.


even the turncoat Jerry Hopkins told me as much, on an affectionate, lovingly chiding postcard--addressed to Patricia MORRISON, by the way--despite his recent hypocritical and possibly slanderous attitude shift.

Um... what attitude shift?

I admit that 1990s and early aughts info is a bit hard to find casually, but as far as I can tell, he doesn't seem to have suddenly turned on her or anything. The only info I can find during that time period is from his second Jim Morrison book, The Lizard King, where his comments on Patricia were:

• At this time, Jim also began a relationship with another woman in New York who, later, assumed a more important role in his life. This was Patricia Kennealy, the quirky, intelligent editor of Jazz & Pop magazine... [followed by a brief sum-up of their first meeting]
• He, like Patricia Kennealy, didn't get to know Jim well this day, but would.
• Patricia Kennealy and Fred Myrow viewed it more charitably. Patricia told me that when they shook hands, 'there were sparks, from the friction on the carpet'. She also admits to a different kind of spark that she felt in her heart, although it would be more than six months before they began their relationship.
• ... he sent his poetry books to and started corresponding with Patricia Kennealy... Patricia liked some of the poetry and reviewed it intelligently in her magazine, Jazz & Pop. Patricia told me that it was well short of a rave review, but apparently Jim was impressed. He sent her a telegram saying 'Thanks for the pat on the back' and later told her 'It was the first time anyone'd reviewed his work and not him.'
• The relationship was spotty, like most with Jim. Their times together were infrequent and rather ordinary; they went to see a couple of movies together... they sat in the lighting booth with Allen Ginsberg to watch the Jefferson Airplane in concert, they went shopping for books, they went for a walk in Central Park. More unusual, Jim corresponded with Patricia, sending her notes on steno pads, four or five pages, one or two words to a line, only four or five lines to a page.
• 'He said he used to practice his signature a lot,' Patricia said. 'He was proud of it. He'd decided at an early age what it was going to look like, with the "J" and the "M" stuck together. It was very studied."
• A summed-up description of their handfasting, her pregnancy, their encounter to discuss it, and her abortion.
• Patricia Kennealy told me that in December, 1970, about a month after the abortion, she flew to Los Angeles and left a message at the Doors' office for Jim, fastened to his desk with a knife. [descriptions of her meeting with Pam, going to sleep with Jim, and subsequent argument with Pamela]
• 'Because I didn't care what Jim did. He was the complete polygamist. But she was really drunk and Jim was easily lured away. She went to the john and five minutes later Jim left. I found them embracing outside on the lawn. I walked over and said, "Get up!" Jim was smiling, he thought it was funny. I said, "Come on up, both of you, up!" [description of her account of him with Janet Erwin, who has a very different and much more plausible story to tell]
• I had a problem with the way Patricia Kennealy was portrayed. She was the magazine editor who had married Jim in a handfasting ceremony that was said to blend souls on a karmic and cosmic plane that has an effect on future incarnations of the two involved. Patricia happily agreed to play the part of the priestess who performed the handfasting. But when she arrived on the set to marry Val Kilmer to Kathleen Quinlan (who played the Kennealy part), she was given only the pages of her scene. When Stone warned her, 'I have you doing things in the script you didn't do,' she replied, 'That's okay,so long as they are things I wouldn't do.' She came to regret that...
• When Patricia Kennealy was flown to Hollywood to perform the handfasting, she found that her New York apartment had been duplicated so perfectly that she saw bills bearing her Lower East Side address on the desk.

I do not know what in those accounts is "slanderous" or worthy of accusations like "turncoat." Most of it is pretty much what she depicts in her book, and most of the material overall is just recycled from Hopkins' earlier book No One Here Gets Out Alive. In fact, he seems very pro-Patricia, in that he seems genuinely outraged by the way she was depicted in the movie, and never says anything negative about her.

But since Strange Days had come out a few years before, I kind of suspect that Hopkins had tapes and transcriptions of Kennealy's words from BEFORE her life became The Legend Of Jim And Patricia. Perhaps even from the first book, which she was interviewed for. Saying he was "the complete polygamist," describing those over-the-top sparks as merely being from the carpet (and not DESTINY), a resolutely ordinary courtship, and a distinct lack of "he was going to leave Pamela and live happily ever after with me"... that doesn't line up with her revised life story. Nor is it ever suggested that she was his true love and soulmate.

Or maybe it's that he doesn't shy away from describing Jim Morrison's bad behavior, or dared to say he was overweight towards the end of his life. Apparently if you ever suggest he was anything but perfect in appearance, behavior or artistry, you are the spawn of Satan and should boil in your own juices.

Either way, I don't know what she considers so treacherous, except that he treated her as a valuable source and a Morrison lover, rather than as THE ONE AND ONLY WIFE AND EXPERT.

Also, I kinda love the descriptions of the letters he gave her, with about eight-to-ten words per page, and only a few of those pages. It doesn't exactly make their correspondence sound like the deep, insightful meeting of souls she tries to pass it off as. I bet she wishes she had never told him that.


[And could that nasty reversal--after twenty-plus years of warm support and friendship--be the onset of senility, or a result of his new Bangkok lifestyle, or because he has a stake in the book we'll shortly be discussing, editorial stake at least, financial maybe even? Hmmm?

Or... maybe... he was just relating the facts that she now wants to revise out of reality?


You think? He did tell me he thought of writing such a book himself; he did write the foreword to this one. The book's perpetrator has already thanked him publicly and profusely, and has even been known to tell people she's his literary agent. I have a letter from him where he talked of his encouraging her in her work, and even urged me to get involved too--oh, right, THAT'll happen!--he sent me copies of his correspondence with her, and offered his opinion of her (I believe `flake' was the kindest descriptive he used)--well, just who the hell knows??]

Ah, now the "turncoat" thing becomes clear. Light has dawned.

I'll save you the trouble of googling it: the foreword is for the book Angels Dance and Angels Die, by Patricia Butler.



That explains everything, because that book is the bane of her existence. Not only is it about Jim Morrison's relationship with Pamela, but it describes her as "Pamela Morrison." Having other people read this book and find it plausible is her worst nightmare, because it is utterly incompatible with her narrative.

Also, it claims that Morrison once said he was molested. For some reason... this idea makes PKM really, REALLY mad. I don't know why. It's no reflection on him or on their relationship.

Yes, Hopkins wrote a whole foreword for this book, rather than setting fire to the manuscript (and probably Butler) as PKM would have preferred. And in it, he says all the things that PKM wants the world to NOT hear:

• calling Pamela Jim's "cosmic mate" and "common-law-wife"
• declaring that in his prior book, he hadn't given Pamela enough attention
• saying he had thought about writing a book about their romance, but that he got distracted
• saying Butler's book should be "the final word on the matter"
• praises Butler's work ethic
• declaring that Jim kept Pamela apart from his work life (sort of like what PKM claims was done with HER), and that their denial of her importance was because of ignorance
• "I believe they also sometimes resented Pam's presence in Jim's life, because she was a recurring voice that urged him to leave the band and turn his full attention on writing and filmmaking"
• essentially says "my bad" for not recognizing the seriousness of their relationship
• talks about how he had met Pam about a year before her death, and waxes eloquent about her beauty
• "... thereby, finally, giving Pamela Susan Morrison the consideration she deserves, while painting a fuller, more satisfying portrait of the man she loved"
• comparing their relationship to Sid and Nancy, Heloise and Abelard, and Romeo and Juliet

Yeah, I can totally see why PKM freaked out when she heard about that. Her entire identity is that of the only woman in Morrison's life who meant anything real to him, who was a positive influence on him, and who deserves any kind of respect or appreciation. The very idea that anyone might give as much - or more - respect to Pam enrages her, because she can only be #1 if Pam isn't.

Also, Jerry Hopkins was the first person to write a widely-read Morrison bio, so his opinion carries some weight. If people read that foreword, they're more likely to actually take the contents seriously... which is the exact opposite of what PKM wants.

So it's not enough for her that Hopkins has been nothing but kind and complimentary towards her in both his books, depicted her as an important and major presence in Jim's life, and even chastised Stone for his depiction of her. No, he has to DENY Pam completely, claim she was a murderer, and that Jim was totally going to leave her for his Wun Troo Luv. And if he doesn't buy into the whole legend of Jim and Patricia - despite all the evidence suggesting otherwise - then he has betrayed her and is a hypocrite, a turncoat, slanderous and possibly senile.

You know, a person who actually has the facts on their side doesn't need to freak out and shriek "BETRAYAL!" every time someone has an account that doesn't support theirs.


In fact, even one of my most hateful and virulent detractors addressed me so, on the couple of suck-up missives she wrote me in 1991 and 1992 ("Dear Ms. Morrison... I don't believe there would be any conflict between our two projects that might prevent you from speaking with me. In fact, I would feel quite comfortable citing your work in the body of my work. There is no doubt that you must have had quite an impact on Pamela's life, and I would be remiss if I didn't do everything I can to present that as accurately as possible... I'm not looking to grab a larger market share than someone else."), smarmily assuring me that "You certainly have a perspective on this individual that is unique, which makes your input quite important to me. Most of the people I've spoken to so far have also urged me to get your point of view. While I hardly needed to be convinced that your opinion is important to this story, their encouragement only confirmed this belief."
Not exactly a form letter; and my, how that brown-nosing tune did change...once she read Strange Days. Sadly, she is not alone in her evil hypocrisy.

1. Sounds like she was just doing her research. According to Hopkins' foreword, she was pretty exhaustive in her research, so it's hardly surprising that she would interview one of Morrison's major lovers, especially one acquainted with Pam.
2. And no, it's not a particularly "suck-up" tone there. She mostly uses noncommittal, neutral language like "unique," "important," "impact" and tries to assure her that there isn't a conflict between their books.
3. And no, she's not one of Kennealy's most hateful and virulent detractors... well, not in the book, anyway.
4. A hateful and virulent detractor would have claimed that Kennealy was a crazy stalking liar, or omitted her completely. Butler? She was perfectly civil about PKM.
5. And no, there's absolutely no sign that Butler went scurrying away, vowing revenge on PKM when she read the ugly facts about darling Pamela in Strange Days. In fact, she mentions the book by name.
6. What's more, it sounds like she approached PKM in a perfectly pleasant manner, and PKM was very rude and unhelpful to her. In Butler's book, she states that PKM declared that she had said everything she wanted to in Strange Days, with the implicit refusal to answer any questions or give any info. So Butler simply recounted a few cited instances of material in Strange Days, with no negative slant on Patricia whatsoever.
7. Which probably makes PKM even madder. She could more easily play the martyr and the wounded party if the people she hates would be nasty to her.

Well, I won't play their game: I'm quite happy to be made a martyr for the man I love; that's all their stupid petty viciousness can do for me or to me now.

If she's happy to be made a martyr, then why does she explode in rage whenever someone says Pam was his main girlfriend?


I am stronger than they are, and smarter than they are, and braver than they are, and better than they are; I can laugh at them, because I know that I will win in the end, because of Jim and because of me. We, not they, are the ones who will last.

1. PKM can keep claiming that she's bigger and better and above anyone who disagrees with her, but it doesn't actually mean anything if she keeps shrieking with rage every time someone disagrees.
2. The fact that most of the FAQ is about "I was Jim Morrison's wife AND IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT MAY YOU FRY IN HELL ON SATAN'S BALLSACK WITH ZOMBIE WORMS RAPING YOU UP THE ASS!" kind of shows that she's not above anything. She lets every even implicit insult get under her skin...
3. ... and I'm being very liberal with the word "insult," since she considers it an insult to merely say that Pamela was Morrison's main girlfriend. And that she wasn't a murderer. Or an evil junkie whore.
4. Yo, Patricia? When it comes to history, people don't "win."
5. And clearly you're not stronger, because people who take offense at anyone disagreeing with them are usually weak as hell.
6. I also question the "smarter," since you are trying to rewrite reality without recognizing that you can't. The Rock Wives interview and the contributions to past Morrison books won't cease to exist because you want them to.
7. As for better... I'm going to just laugh at that.

Jim and my art and my religion are the triadic cornerstones of my life. There is no way I could say which of those three is most important to me because they are completely intertwined, organically symbiotic; I cannot separate one from the others, I could not say which I would choose, if forced, to live without. Together they are all I have, and each is all I have; they grow with and for and in each other, they take strength from each other, they give me strength immeasurable; together they have a synergy that has made me who and what I am, that IS who and what I am. I am utterly, unswervingly faithful to all of them; and to deny one of them is to deny all of me.

And we got such wonderful things when she brought those intertwined things together.



Oh wait, we got a creepy, weird, disturbing Mary Sue story that managed to completely destroy Kennealy-Morrison's series, because the entire story is about:

1. Kennealy-Morrison is awesome.
2. Jim Morrison only ever really loved her, because she was awesome.
3. Pamela Courson was an evil junkie whore who deserved to die.
4. Everything Kennealy-Morrison has ever done was perfectly justified.
5. Everybody who doesn't support the Legend Of Jim And Patricia should die horribly.

And no, I'm not exaggerating. Read the book, if you want to feel kind of dirty and depressed.


Women's anger, traditionally, has always been deprecated and denigrated;

This is unfortunately true... but simple logic tells us that not all women's anger is justified, just because it has been denigrated. Just because you're a woman doesn't make your anger right or justified.


I have seen my own anger, anger specifically Jim-related, ignored completely, or disparaged, belittled, even ridiculed --

Maybe that's because you're soooooo hyperbolic about it? Especially since your anger can be sparked off by the littlest of things?


other people who never even knew Jim can be totally obsessed with him and nobody turns a hair, nobody thinks this is at all strange, but somehow it's soooo unreasonable and obsessive for ME to be angry and upset about my beloved husband's death,

1. No, it isn't. At first.
2. Decades later? Yeah, it kind of is, at least to this degree.
3. It's certainly obsessive for her to freak out at ANY PERSON anywhere disagreeing with her.
4. And it's definitely unreasonable to talk about them being subhuman, judge the entire content of their lives without reading their words, and other enchanting viewpoints.

or the fact that he may have been helped to it,

Or may not have been, since the only source is a notorious liar who acted super-guilty.


or the vicious lies that have been told about me and him and us --

Most of those "vicious lies" are either true, or are more plausible than her accounts.


or, if acknowledged, however dismissively and begrudgingly, it is with a sneering accusation that obviously I have issues and pain that I haven't dealt with and that need to be resolved.

That much is obvious to anyone with eyeballs.

I mean seriously, this woman wrote a book where she viciously murdered the other Doors by filling their guts with bees, de-boning them alive, or flaying them and having their skins turned into a saddle... for pretty much ignoring her. That's not the sign that someone doesn't have issues.


Well, I submit I AM dealing with it, I AM resolving it; I'm just doing so in a way that some of you -- self-evidently the stupider, more cowardly ones among you -- don't feel at all comfortable with.

So it's okay for her to refer to anyone who doesn't agree with her as dementoids, delusional, jealous, pathetic, vicious, maggots, noxious, "worthless little pieces of garbage," malevolent sluglings, less than human, malignant, stupid, slimy, morons, vampires, get-a-lifers, cretins, autofundamentpreservatory mountebanks, delusional, graverobbing Jimmy-come-latelies, "big old lazy ignorant stupids," needy parasites, pathetic, weenies, "Pamheads," unspeakable jackasses, bastards, "the most cruel and vicious and contemptible lying rat bastards who ever walked the earth" who deserve to fry in hell... and those are only the ones she's used so far. It gets worse!

And she's said things even more vicious about Pamela herself, who is dead and unable to defend herself.

But if they say they don't believe her? They're stupid and cowardly and can't deal with her Strong Neopagan GoddessWoman pain! Nope, sorry, not how it works. You don't get to claim "I'm dealing with it by being angry and abusive towards everyone I don't like!" and expect nobody to criticize you. Fuck off.


In fact, I'm in touch with my inner Klingon, and man does it feel good...

I'm more in touch with my inner Oscar Wilde AND my inner Vulcan. It's very rewarding to poke people's stupidity full of holes.


If that irritates people, too damn bad.

And if other people's focus on the facts irritates her, too damn bad.


But I was slandered and lied about, trivialized and demonized, for TWENTY YEARS before I finally spoke out (and it's still happening...); I think I have a right to be cross.

1. Lady, face it: nobody was slandering you before you spoke out. Nobody gave a damn.
2. You were only known because some of those biographers you hate so much mentioned you in their books.
3. But I suspect that "trivializing" you bothers you more than demonizing and slandering, because nothing sends you into a rage attack like people ignoring you or feeling your relationship wasn't The One And Only.
4. And it would be very difficult for people to lie about you pre-Strange Days, simply because... pretty much all they knew about you was FROM YOU. Those biographers? They got the information FROM YOU.
5. And when we're talking about the truth, here's one: you have not given anyone one damn reason to believe your Strange Days version of reality, especially since you contradicted yourself after your accounts of your affair in books, TV interviews and in the Rock Wives interview. Every scrap of evidence is told to us THROUGH YOU. Jim said this, gave me that, planned this.
6. You don't DESERVE people's belief that you're truthful and right. You EARN it.
7. Especially since you contradict yourself ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
8. And being cross is not the same thing as expecting to dole out abuse to anyone who doesn't buy your story/expects evidence/questions your perceptions/has read other accounts that say otherwise... and not receive any in return.

I love Jim Morrison. I am loved by him. And while I draw breath upon this earth I will never cease to defend him. And also after.

Whatever, lady.