Pynchon fax

[Otto]

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 12:23 AM
Subject: Re: Pynchon fax


> on 29/4/04 10:46 PM, Malignd wrote:
>
> > All I'm suggesting in this string is that Pynchon
> > could easily have more actively participated in the
> > world of letters without doing damage to his privacy,
> > and his readership would now be far richer for it.  It
> > need not have thrust him into some imagined cult of
> > celebrity.  That it might be problematic for Pynchon
> > now is a situation largely of his own creation.
> >
> > One might argue that he does write the occasional
> > article and their infrequency adds to their weight.
> > But by that measure, It's doubly disappointing that
> > his public comments to Japanese Playboy were so banal
> > and inept.
>
> Whether they were comments made publicly by Pynchon (or whether they are
in
> fact his comments) has still not been substantiated. It's worth recalling
> that references to the Wanda Tinasky letters appeared in refereed journals
> and bibliographies too when they were being attributed as Pynchon's
> handiwork.

There's one big difference regarding the authenticity. Pynchon has declared
that he did not write those letters. He never did so in the case of the
Playboy Japan-text.

> But I agree that if it is Pynchon speaking in that Japan Playboy
> piece, and if it was something which he assented to do, then it's a very
> real disappointment. The flip tone and facetious comments about tobacco
> shares

"Finally, if I want to invest in stock aggressively now, I am going to
invest in the tobacco industry. After the attacks, those who had quit
smoking in the past has begun smoking tobacco again."

> and rodeo clowns

"Bin Laden should be considered as a symbol. America always looks for an
enemy. The country cannot feel O.K. without it. It has labeled Bin Laden as
the bad guy who commanded the terrorist attacks from behind the scenes, only
because we couldn't feel O.K. unless we made him. But I think Bin Laden is
just somebody's rodeo clown. My thought has been always a little paranoid.
But it is not only I who thinks like that. NSA is supposed to watch Bin
Laden, but I think we are going to see a new layer after a layer like
onionskins. I cannot help thinking it was not he alone responsible for the
attacks. I have an impression that Bin Laden is just a front man."

> belie the argument that the "subway" remark was
> sincere,

Given for the sake of argument that this "interview" is real and no fake I
don't see any reason not to believe that he's been serious about his habit
that had changed after 9/11 when I read what he has said:

"Since the attacks, I stopped taking subways. That's the biggest change in
my everyday life. I used to go everywhere riding the subways, but now I
never take subways because I'm afraid of chemical weapons. There is a
precedent of the sarin attacks in Tokyo and the causalities from the
biological weapon called anthrax are spreading. I will not surprised if
chemical weapons are used against us anytime soon."

> or that he was attempting to make some brave political stand.
>

He's speaking like a very normal person about something many New Yorkers
might have felt similar. But he also said this:

"We should not forget that many of Bin Laden's brothers were once the
business partners of George Bush jr. in oil ventures."

Indeed, we shouldn't.

> And recall also his most recent public "appearance" -- on the prime time
> Simpsons tv show as a cartoon version of himself wearing a plain brown
> paper bag over his head.

That's been a great and funny thing. Making fun of all those who are
interested more in his person than in his books.

> There's also the clown he sent to receive the National
> Book Award,

I don't think that Irwin Corey is merely a "clown"; he's been the one who
had taken over the show when Lenny Bruce was arrested on stage.

> his self-imposed exile in Mexico, jumping through the window to
> avoid Norman Mailer, the fuss he made over the publication of his letters,
> and ringing up CNN in 1997 to ask that video footage of him not be shown
> (where he stated that he is someone who "doesn't like to talk to
> reporters"). Note also the lengths he went to *not* to be interviewed
> one-on-one by David Hajdu -- he faxed his written reply to Hajdu's
> research questions about Fariña via an intermediary!
>
> The Wikipedia has this to say: "Around the publication of his third novel,
> Gravity's Rainbow in 1973, Pynchon became notorious for his avoidance of
> public view", which is a fair enough comment in my opinion.
>

Absolutely correct.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Pynchon
>
> I've never called him "reclusive", and wouldn't, by the way (that's
> Millison's lie), and I don't agree that he's a loon or timid either; I
> have
> called him "elusive", and "absent and anonymous", however, and I do think
> he
> has nurtured this image or reputation deliberately. The question is why.
>
> best
>

There have been enough people who have been destroyed by too much media
presence. I guess only anonymity can guarantee that someone like Pynchon can
lead a relatively normal family life. He's been able to take his son to
school without being recognized on the street until James Boone tracked him
down.

Otto