is Pynchon a recluse?

[CyrusGeo at netscape.net]

Kurt-Werner Pörtner wrote:

>  the author is 
>  the worst interpreter of his own work.

Quite right, since he isn't supposed to be an interpreter at all. One does not interpret one's own writings. This would only be valid in psychotherapy. And writing is not psychotherapy, at least not when you choose to publish what you've written. (Although some writers would disagree on this ;-). 
The author is the person behind the work. And the work, after its publication, is autonomous and should be treated that way. Biographical details are irrelevant; besides helping a scholar formulate his opinions on the author, they can do nothing for the reader other than distract him from what's important: the work itself. I'll say it again: The game is between the book and the reader. The author, though omnipresent, is absent, and the reader is left to cope with ... well, himself, really, i.e. whatever of himself he sees in the book. Could this be the reason why so many people have never been able to finish reading GR?

And from jbor:
>  It strikes me that there are both aesthetic and political implications to
>  Pynchon's choice of public anonymity. For one, the texts speak for
>  themselves, and this is something which is foregrounded by his absence from
>  the public spotlight. Secondly, garnering media celebrity would be somewhat
>  incongruous, if not hypocritical, in the light of his ongoing critique of
>  the structures and institutions of American hegemony.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks.

Cyrus
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/