<div dir="ltr">A big court case? no. A letter, yes - but maybe saying a bit more than 'Keep trying'. I mean that fit with the Wanda Letters, but remember when CNN got too close? <div><br></div><div>At any rate it sounds like Boris is a respectful fan and a decent journalist, so I suspect he knows that it is delicate territory and one would do well to walk right. Christ, just the weight of the Pynchon scholarly community calling someone out on a naff piece of print is enough to make anyone with a brain think twice. </div><div><br></div><div>ciao</div><div>mc</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:15 AM, John Bailey <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sundayjb@gmail.com" target="_blank">sundayjb@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Journalists don't do footnotes. It's possible a NYT piece would be<br>
fact-checked but less likely in the arts and culture sections. It<br>
would have been read by the lawyers though because of P's profile.<br>
<br>
But I can't imagine Pynchon engaging in a big court case because he<br>
felt misrepresented! At best there'd be another "keep trying" letter.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 7:19 PM, matthew cissell <<a href="mailto:mccissell@gmail.com">mccissell@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Paul,<br>
><br>
> Not sure about your evaluation. Boris Kachka wrote the piece for Vulture<br>
> which belongs to NY Magazine, so from a journalistic point of view it's not<br>
> exactly a rag and I'm sure they have lawyers and editors to avoid problems<br>
> (like writing crap about an author that is as hooked up as TP - can you say<br>
> libel suit?).<br>
><br>
> We might note that Kachka clearly attributes a lot of his information to<br>
> people that he cites in the piece. Where he does not state the source<br>
> clearly we might reasonably assume it's because the source didn't want to be<br>
> mentioned.<br>
><br>
> Finally, a lack of footnotes in a journalistic piece like this is hardly a<br>
> sign of lacking investigative rigour. But I'll let other journalists judge<br>
> that.<br>
><br>
> I'd say the piece looks pretty solid as far as the information provided is<br>
> concerned.<br>
><br>
> ciao<br>
> mc<br>
><br>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Paul Mackin <<a href="mailto:mackin.paul@gmail.com">mackin.paul@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Not very authoritative. No footnotes probably because sources aren't very<br>
>> authoritative either.<br>
>><br>
>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 3:56 AM, matthew cissell <<a href="mailto:mccissell@gmail.com">mccissell@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Tyler,<br>
>>><br>
>>> Thanks, I had forgetten about the Kachka piece. That must have been it,<br>
>>> but I thought I had come across something that referred to his parents later<br>
>>> years and a reconciliation of sorts.<br>
>>><br>
>>> (What is the Pyn community consensus on the piece? I know that Jules<br>
>>> Siegel's Playboy interview is sometimes called into question on grounds of<br>
>>> motive (self-serving, revenge, etc.), but what about Boris' work?)<br>
>>><br>
>>>Â Â Ok, wait, you deserve big thanks my man. I went back to look at the<br>
>>> Kachka piece and not only does it have the line you mention, but it also,<br>
>>> further on, includes that in the 1990's, "Pynchon told friends he was seeing<br>
>>> a lot more of his parents" which following what we know about Pynchon's<br>
>>> politics and his parent's (father a Serious Republican and mother a serious<br>
>>> catholic and likely anti-semite) allows us to infer that there was at least<br>
>>> a rift of sorts that was then mended.<br>
>>><br>
>>>Â Â That's what I was after. I owe you a beer, or whatever.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Very Appreciatively,<br>
>>> Matt Cissell<br>
>>><br>
>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Tyler Wilson <<a href="mailto:tbsqrd@hotmail.com">tbsqrd@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Matthew —<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Though it isn't stated explicitly, that information can be gleaned from<br>
>>>> a couple passages of Boris Kachka's 2013 piece for Vulture:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> <a href="http://www.vulture.com/2013/08/thomas-pynchon-bleeding-edge.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.vulture.com/2013/08/thomas-pynchon-bleeding-edge.html</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> " . . . he and his then-girlfriend, Mary Ann Tharaldsen, were driving<br>
>>>> through Big Sur when she complained of nausea. She wanted to stop at a bar<br>
>>>> and have a shot to settle her stomach. According to Tharaldsen, he exploded,<br>
>>>> telling her he would not tolerate midday drinking. When she asked why, he<br>
>>>> told her he’d seen his mother, after drinking, accidentally puncture his<br>
>>>> father’s eye with a clothespin. It was the only time, says Tharaldsen, who<br>
>>>> lived with him, that he ever mentioned his family. “He was disconnected from<br>
>>>> them,†she says. “There seems to have been something not good there.†"<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> "Pynchon and Jackson married in 1990 and had a son—first name Jackson—a<br>
>>>> year later. Pynchon told friends he was seeing a lot more of his parents. .<br>
>>>> . . "<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Cheers,<br>
>>>> --<br>
>>>> T<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 3:59 AM, matthew cissell <<a href="mailto:mccissell@gmail.com">mccissell@gmail.com</a>><br>
>>>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Dear P-listers,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I have a problem and that is that I could swear that I read somewhere<br>
>>>> that Pynchon had been a bit estranged from his folks but that he eventually<br>
>>>> made peace with them. Does that sound familiar to anyone? Where did that<br>
>>>> come from? I can't find the source now. Was it from Phyllis Gebauer?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Beseechingly,<br>
>>>> mc otis<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>