Pynchon-Tinasky

[jbor]

----------
>From: Dave Monroe <davidmmonroe at yahoo.com>
>

> This is indeed an interesting and worthwhile
> distinction to make here, a "character" in a novel vs.
> a "persona" on an editorial page

It's not just a distinction being made; they *are* different.

> it's a matter
> of different contexts

Yes.

> Or, rather,
> of "intentionalities" separable from their authors to
> an "intentionality" presumably the author's own ...

Yes.

>
> Characters rather less controversially attributable to
> Pynchon (i.e, those in the fictions published under
> his name), of course, say, not to mention do, all
> sorts of appalling things (although this has indeed
> proven to be a matter of taste here).  Including
> spouting racial slurs ...

Right, but noone ever claims that Foppl or Major Marvy or Blicero (or, for
that matter, Slothrop) *is* Pynchon, and yet the whole thrust of the Tinasky
hoax had been that "Wanda" *is* Pynchon. So, you are (or whoever you're
arguing on behalf of) trying to claim that the status of "Wanda" is the same
as that of fictional characters in the novels, but only in order to say that
"Wanda" and Pynchon are one and the same person. It simply doesn't add up.

> But, again, "persona," "character," whatever, i think
> we're all in agreement that we're not only reading a
> fictional construct here of some sort

I don't think that even Bruce Anderson, Steve Moore or the publishers of
those 'Letters' would agree on this. You seem to be missing the whole point
of the Tinasky debate, which is whether Pynchon is or isn't "Wanda". And,
whatever caveats you might attempt to construct about it, the fact of the
matter is that it is "Wanda" -- and not Anderson or W.S. Burroughs -- who
labelled Alice Walker a "purple-assed baboon".

>  Pynchon has his own
> (perhaps inscutable, but ...) self-interests as much
> as anybody does, esp. in a case fraught with as much
> weirdness as l'affaire Tinasky.

Which is probably why he decided to put an end to the speculation. But, at
least as far as you're concerned it seems, it's a case of "damned if he does
and damned if he doesn't".

> Eric has consistently
> raised perfectly good points here

I think what Eric contended, essentially, was that, as the alleged
letter-writer, Pynchon went "bonkers", and that, in subsequently denying
that he was "Wanda", he is a liar. Surely this is "questionable
argumentation"?

> And exactly how much do we know about Thoams Pynchon
> "in the real world"?

Have you read Pynchon's published non-fiction, the _Slow Learner_ 'Intro',
the intros to the Barthelme collection and _Stone Junction_, the letter of
support for Salman Rushdie, that letter to Thomas Hirsch? (Let alone the
novels!) If you had you would surely realise that Pynchon's attitudes,
literary style, self-image, and the respect he shows for other writers,
artists and intellectuals, are so far removed from that demonstrated by
"Wanda" to render the whole notion that "she" is Pynchon an absolute
absurdity.

(And, as for your continuing misreading of Blicero's character and the
interpretations offered by many reputed critics as well as other
participants in this discussion, your own penchant for sarcasm and
"nastiness" here, your persecution and vilification of particular listers
and attempts to foreclose their right to express a pov, your apparent
alliance with "big one" ... well, it just goes to show, doesn't it ... )