A possible hoax (formerly A likely hoax)

[Tim Strzechowski]

From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>

> So I don't think it's correct to conclude that Pynchon has "put his name
to"
> the piece. He's certainly nowhere credited as the author of the article.
The
> case for its authenticity seems to rest on the argument that Pynchon
hasn't
> disclaimed it, which is hardly convincing, considering the context of
> publication and (lack of) response to it.
>

You're correct: he's not credited as the author ... he's credited as the
subject of the "talk" (It's right up there at the top, left corner). And
since it's in the first-person singular, one is led to conclude that the
speaker is supposed to be Pynchon, given the information in the byline.

I'm not all too familar with the circumstances surrounding the publication
of his other miscellania (book blurbs, liner notes, etc.).  What sort of
authenticity does Pynchon provide for these items?  When a book blurb is
published, does he somehow authenticate its authorship, or do we, as
readers, assume that since it's in an American publication, and perhaps one
of note, that it's obviously been written by "him"?

I'm also curious:  a)  Why would something by Pynchon (if it is him) be
published in a Japanese publication in the first place?  What's the
connection?  b)  Conversely, if it isn't Pynchon, why would a Japanese
publication fabricate his authorship?  Again, what's the connection.

Realize, Rob, that I do indeed see your point.  But I question how we
authenticate certain works and not others, since an American publication can
perpetuate a hoax just as well as a Japanese one.

Tim