re Re: Pynchon & journalists

[Doug Millison]

PW:  "Hajdu conducted hundreds of interviews for each of his books, but
his favorite source is someone he's never met. "

Inerview sources, subjects -- it's the same thing really, and the sentence
above makes that pretty clear.  Define "interview" as you like, of course,
don't let journalistic custom stand in your way -- after all, as you say
you're "not a media expert", and you're not a journalist, so how could you
be expected to know what's considered an interview and what's not in the
journalism business?  In actual practice, the reporter and editor establish
the parameters to be met in a particular assignment, based on the
availability and willingness of the source, or subject. And, journalists
and editors use these terms more or less interchangeably:  "Who was your
source for that story?" ; "I interviewed X in his office"; "I interviewed
my source by fax", "My interview subjects for this story included A, B, C",
and so on.

At any rate, you haven't convinced me that Pynchon has maintained a
"deliberate forty year silience" or a "deliberate forty year journalistic
interview silence" (or however it was you revised your previous statement;
although I do agree with Ruth's formulation that if authentic, and if
Pynchon talked to the Playboy Japan reporter on the phone or in person, it
would mark a different kind of interview than he's permitted before now --
and it seems you have now abandoned your previous insistence on a 40-tear
silence in favor of this milder statement, so we agree!) -- he's let
himself be interviewed  at least twice that we know of with certainty
(Hajdu and CNN -- plus that P-lister I know who posed questions to Pyncho
by fax and got responses -- I'm not at liberty to reveal the name of the
P-lister, I'm afraid), and it remains to be seen if the Playboy Japan
interview is authentic, and, if so, whether it was conducted by fax or
phone or email or some other medium of communication -- the editors of
Playboy Japan don't seem to have specified the medium by which the
interview was conducted.

If you want to define "interview" according to the medium in which the
exchange is conducted, go ahead, but it seems to be splitting hairs in a
way that obstructs the reality of the matter -- which is, that Pynchon has
made himself available to questions from, and has provided answers to
journalists; yours smacks of a definition concocted on the spur of the
moment just to make a point in this argument, although I realize as I write
this last clause that I may be too harsh in suggesting that you would stoop
to that sort of rhetorical tactic just to win a point in an email exchange!
No offense intended, of course.

"jbor":
"It seems a little precious of you to have
laboured so, for close on 15 posts now, over the wording of this statement,
don't you think?"

Well, you've been right here with me all along, arguing for your own
interpretation of what is an interview and what isn't, dealing with the
same statements -- you tell me,  do you think the hair-splitting you've
been engaged in in this long exchange of posts with me is "a little
precious"? I've tried my best to answer your points and questions, and you
seem to have been happy enough to prolong the discussion -- I never
imgained I was forcing you to take part in a discussion in which you didn't
want to participate; if somehow you got the idea that you needed to keep
this thread going to please me, gee, I'm sorry, we could have dropped it a
long time ago. I have had some time on my hands today in between various
errands and tasks around the house, and it's always fun to talk with
friends.

It is funny how we can get bogged down in the discussion of this sort of
detail, but in the detail is where the really interesting stuff happens so
much of the time, don't you agree? I mean, you seem to really enjoy
carrying on these long back-and-forth threads that focus on small details
of interpretation and terminology -- look at you and Bandwraith kicking old
Ben Franklin around, for example  --  I thought that was something you
enjoyed doing on Pynchon-L.

But I think we have had enough of this one, and I'm happy to give you the
pleasure of having the last word on this one -- be my guest, please.

Cordially,
Doug

P.S.  I'm still not sure what it is that makes you see such similarity
between the single Pynchon quote in Eisner's book (on MDMA) and the
interview-attributed-to-Pynchon in Playboy Japan.  Playboy Japan labels it
pretty clearly (in English, no less, right there in among that sea of
hiragana and katakana) as "Talk by Thomas Pynchon" and names the reporter
who conducted the interview -- Playboy Japan doesn't appear to be
presenting it as off-the-cuff, the Pynchon interview is one of a series of
articles that include statements about September 11 from several literary
notables.  Eisner presents only a single quote, which, he assured me, he is
certain came from Thomas Pynchon.  I don't see the two as being in the same
category of material at all -- but of course, feel free to slice it and
dice it however you like.



Doug Millison - Writer/Editor/Web Editorial Consultant
millison at online-journalist.com
www.Online-Journalist.com