noteriety (and my first post to the list)

[Brian Siano]

Forwarded message:
> X-Sender: ethan at magicnet.net (Unverified)

>         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.
  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?

	Well, I could be wrong, but here's my guess.

	I think it's a lot more difficult to justify what you do in
fiction. I do some freelance writing (I used to have a column at _The
Humanist_), and if anyone decided to ask why I'd written about
such-and-such, or why I came to a particular conclusion, I had no
problem citing the facts and perhaps going into some detailed
arguments.
	But when I tried writing fiction-- and bear in mind, I can't
say I'm any good at fiction-- I had a real reluctance to put it in
front of the public. It's because when I tried writing fiction, I'm
drawing on impressions, observations, or even narrative events that
really can't be completely justified by detailed argument. 
	Now, we know there are lots of readers out there who'd want to
ask the writer just _why_ he had the characters do this, or had _that_
event occur, and how they developed some particular structure. (I'd
guess we're all complicit here.) And when I tried writing short
stories, I didn't _feel_ like justifying every detail: I just wanted
to provide an interesting reading experience, and if the reader had
questions, well, that's nice, but that's their own lookout. 
	Given what I've read about Pynchon the man, I have the strong
suspicion that he's probably reluctant and frustrated with detailed
literary questions. After all, if you'd written novels that are
impressively detailed, yet contain episodes of genuine fantasy,
wouldn'y you feel a little besieged by people asking you just _why_
you had a pie fight happen between a balloon and a plane, or had
Slothrop fight a giant squid, or tossed in the dialogue between two
melanin cells? It'd be like asking George Carlin or Sam Kinison how
they "structured" their monologues.
	The thing is, when some people write fiction, some things just
_feel_ right, and trying to explain _why_ it feels right is trying to
justify and explain some fairly private (and perhaps inexplicable)
mental processes. That's actually a pretty scary thing for any writer;
there's always the chance that, upon some humorless examination, one's
own thought processes might be suddenly revealed as being a lot less
noble or selfless than one wnats them to be.

Brian Siano - siano at cceb.med.upenn.edu
"What would I ask Pynchon if I ever met him? Nothing. I would,
however, like to just get _along_ with the guy."