Pynchon-Tinasky

[Dave Monroe]

Let me preface this, as I inevitably do when the
subject comes up, with the disclaimer that, not only
have I not spent much time on l'affaire Tinasky, I've
no strong opinion (yet) on it, either.  That being
said, well, I have finally read all the published
letters (plus what other materail was published with
them), the various online articles people have posted
here, that early Charles Hollander article (still
relevant, I think), and, finally, Foster's chapter on
the question.

Foster can be very persuasive, but there are
questions, problems even beyond the ones Eric notes
here.  Now, I don't have the Foster book at hand, and,
I will note, this is because I read the Tinasky
chapter at a bookstore (just couldn't bring myself to
shell out for it quite yet), so, let me know if I'm
mistaken, but ...

As I recall, Fotser doesn't account for the letters
signed "Wanda Tinasky" received (1990?) after Hawkins'
death (1988?).  He also made at least one egregious
misreading, attributing a comment about Alice Walker
("a stripe-assed baboon" or somesuch?) to "Wanda
Tinasky" "herself," rather than noting that it was a
line WT puts in the mouth of some local luminary or
another (sorry, Letters not handy, either) in a little
playlet or somesuch in one of the letters.  As you
say, Eric, a "token" job of sorts ...

It has been pointed out that Alexander Cockburn pulled
an abrupt about face of sorts on the "Is Tinasky
Pynchon?" question, but not by Foster.  And Foster
notes that he received a letter of thanks from Pynchon
himself.  That I do not doubt, but one might well
reiterate the question Eric asks, "Who [ultimately]
got Don Foster involved?"  Pynchon, of course, has not
been unknown to set in motion his own labyrinthine
intrigues of sorts before, covering to outright
removing hs tracks ...

But, again, though, playing Devil's advocate here. 
I've not much further to elaborate beyond these few
questions, speculations, insinuations, even ...

rosenlake at mac.com wrote:
 
> "Hawkins was a huge fan of _The Recognitions_ who,
> upon encountering
> jack green's _newspaper_ no. 12, containing green's
> Swiftian invective
> against the critics who had reviewed Gaddis's novel
> in 1955, decided that
> green and Gaddis were the same person.  He
> corresponded with green, asking
> if he had "taken notice of the velikovskyan
> catastrophism" in the novel,
> and may later have become convinced that Pynchon was
> just another avatar of
> this remarkable man of letters...:-)"
> 
> "P.P.S.: The novels of William Gaddis & Thomas
> Pynchon were written by
> the same person."
> --Wanda Tinasky, letter to the AVA, August 21, 1985
> 
> After I looked that up, I read the next link, in
> which it is quoted
> (could have saved myself a few minutes).:
> > http://www.komarios.net/gaddis/whoswho.htm
> . . . wherein is also quoted another letter claiming
> that "the same
> person" that wrote the novels of William Gadis &
> Thomas Pynchon was Jack
> Green. 
> 
> Anyway, surely Thomas Pynchon was very familiar with
> The Recognitions,
> which today remains one of the most incisive satires
> of U.S. culture (I
> just read it again last year). Hawkins's interest in
> it is probably not
> exclusive. It no doubt flattered the young Pynchon
> to be not just
> compared with but identified as William Gaddis;
> after proving his
> promise with Gravity's Rainbow (which was published
> two years before
> Gaddis's 2nd novel, JR), TRP could no doubt joke
> about it.
> 
> Donald Foster's work on the Tinasky letters from
> what I've read
> second-hand is not the kind of detailed analysis he
> applied to revealing
> Joe Klein as the author of Primary Colors. Instead,
> he notes the use of
> poems by Hawkins and the coincidence of the letters
> ending and Hawkins's
> death. It's a case, but . . .
> 
> Pynchon may well have known Hawkins's work. He is
> reportedly a great fan
> of poetry, as well as the obscure. Hell, he may have
> been using
> Hawkins's place in Mendocino to work. (And fled back
> east when the
> domestic scene heated up . . .)
> 
> > I'm not sure that it's simply a matter of "old
> left" leanings as of common
> > sense. Why would a writer of Pynchon's stature and
> acclaim bother with such
> > mean-spirited and obviously resentful diatribes
> against obscure local poets
> > & other writers? 
> 
> They aren't that mean-spirited, just popping some
> self-inflations (from
> the Greek phalein?). Anybody who cares about writing
> wants to do that
> all the time. And here was a good local newspaper
> giving them all the
> space they wanted.
> 
> > And, profit margin and self-publicity certainly
> seemed to
> > be uppermost in the minds of some of those
> supposed "old lefties" who were
> > hawking the published letters around the traps for
> several years there.
> 
> Most brazen perhaps was Alexander Cockburn's article
> expressing doubt
> about Bruce Anderson's (editor of The AVA)
> insistence that Tinasky was
> Pynchon yet urging everybody to buy his friend's
> collection of the
> letters anyway. He could have been more honest and
> said that an extra
> bonus in the book is the collection of Bruce
> Anderson's wonderful
> columns (which are indeed quite good).
> 
> Who is TR Factor?
> 
> Who got Don Foster involved? And why did he do such
> a token job? Who
> told him about Thomas Hawkins? How come nobody else
> suspected Hawkins,
> when everybody in the area was trying to figure out
> which one of them
> was Tinasky?
> 
> For me, Tinasky sounds like Pynchon, not a parody or
> echo. It's the same
> balance of irreverence, wide-ranging knwoledge and
> obscure tidbits, pop
> culture, melancholic hope . . .
> 
> Yours,
> EDR


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text