re Re: better version of Playboy Japan interview with TRP

[jbor]

"Doug Millison" at millison at online-journalist.com wrote:

> Another P-lister has suggested offlist that a clear indicator of the
> interview's status will come if Pynchon takes legal action to suppress it.

This doesn't make sense. Seeing as Pynchon didn't take legal action to
suppress the Tinasky hoax, and this article is a piece of fluff by
comparison, what justification is there to use "legal action" as the
yardstick of the article's authenticity? And anyway, why would he bother?
Why should the onus of "proof" be on Pynchon, on his propensity to
litigiousness, particularly if he didn't actually give an interview or
otherwise authorise the publication of these comments (assuming they are
his)? After all, he didn't bother to deny the Tinasky hoax until 1997, and
then only because the opportunity presented itself.

> This challenges the
> romantic myth of Pynchon as a recluse -- he has himself rejected the use of
> that label to describe him.

He also intimated that he "doesn't like to talk to reporters" in the very
same sentence. 

http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/05/pynchon/

best

                                     ***

                         "My belief is that recluse
                        is a code word generated by
                          journalists ... meaning,
                    'doesn't like to talk to reporters.'"
                   
                                       T.R. Pynchon

                                     ***