Pynchon-Tinasky

[Otto]

> I wrote:
> > Compar[ing the Tinasky letters] to his others essays or the "Slow
Learner"
> > intro made clear to me that he was not Wanda, but that the one who
> > had written them was pretty much trying to raise the impression that he
> > was - for obvious reasons (to get attention) - and this (successful)
strategy
> > is indeed questionable.
>
Eric wrote:
> To get attention? The writer was successful, yes . . . except they
> forgot to tell everyone who they really were.
>
> Doug's reminder that Pynchon is a prankster is worth keeping in mind. It
> is certainly not determinative, but it does warn one against simply
> accepting as the final word Pynchon's assertion that he was not the
> writer of the Tinasky letters.
>
> --
> Eric R

I haven't read Chuck Hollander's article, "Where's Wanda? The Case of the
Bag Lady and Thomas Pynchon" (Critique, Winter 1997, Vol. 38, No. 2) because
our University library has stopped the submission to Critique due to
financial shortings. Sorry, but true.
I have never considered that Pynchon could have lied about the authorship of
the letters and that's what it would have been. Sorrily Doug doesn't give a
better example but maybe someone can mail me the article in a zipfile.
Before I trash someone's arguments by knee-jerk reflex I would appreciate to
read them.

Otto