anudder question...

[Paul Mackin]

On Mon, 29 Jan 1996, Christopher James Tassava wrote:


>	 _WHY_ are people so concerned to discover 
> Pynchon where (presumably) no Pynchon exists?  Is his relative 
> nonprolificity that much of an affront?  Any insights would be greatly 
> appreciated...

 
There's really no question that he exists. Many reliable people have
confirmed it.

The mystery is over his private life, and is it just plain natural to love
a mystery.

The real question is why he shuns the limelight. Being in the process
of rereading V. after some 30 years, I will look for help there. First
novels are often particularly autobiographical.

Benny Profane is a strange mixture of talent (at least in attracting
women) and extreme reticence about displaying himself. The world holds 
too many booby traps, and he is too prone to setting them off. Better to 
lie low as much as possible.

Herbert Stencil is a tireless student of history whose research 
methods require "[f]orcible dislocation of personality". Subjectivity
gets in the way. One avoids speaking in the first person. One publishes 
anonymously or privately, like Henry Adams with his own novels
and autobiography. (Lying low is a form of anonymity, is it not?)

Fausto Maijstral reluctantly (for the benefit of Paola) undertakes an
apologia, an exposure of himself, but quickly sees
the implications of such an act. For complex reasons, explaining
ones self constitutes rejections of previous personalities. It is a price
he willingly pays, but not for frivolous reasons.

So, there you have it!  :)
				P.