noteriety

[ethan at magicnet.net]

        There has been much discussion of late as to why Pynchon chooses to
remain out of the public eye.  Someone also mentioned in relation to this,
the concept of the artist in relation to his/her surroundings.  In college
we had many discussions about this.  I, for the most part feel that a
knowledge of the artists intentions and surroundings are essential to an
understanding of their art.  This theory was developed in a study of Jazz
history, where I still believe it applies.  However, in modern times we
face a glut of Doritos and Coke type of information.  That is, the public
is so hungry for knowledge about famous people, that the press will print
any old crap, true or false, regardless, because people will read it.  Now,
I still want information about artists, but I don't really want the sordid
tale of how much of a tortured artist Marvin Gaye (I read a book like this
about him) is, and how much drugs he used.  Could Pynchon be avoiding this?
Can we still place Pynchon in a historical context despite our lack of
knowledge about him (obviously yes)?  Would our understanding and enjoyment
of Pynchon's work be enhanced by knowledge of the man himself (I think
yes)?  Are artists who deliberately lie about themselves (Keith Richards,
Tom Waits) really avoiding this type of analysis?

                                                Ethan Schofer