Pynchon fax

[jbor]

>> 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.

Not yet, at least (and he didn't disclaim writing the Tinasky letters for
quite a number of years either). And it was never published in the States
either, whereas the Tinasky letters were. There are also huge differences in
the volume of text comprised by each, the contexts of secondary publication
and circulation, and how much notice was being taken of them. The Japan
Playboy piece is so inconsequential and has had such little impact that he
perhaps isn't bothered about it (or isn't even aware of it), or else he
recognises that in making a public denial he would merely be drawing
unwarranted attention to it (which is perhaps why he had to put that Foster
guy onto the case with the Tinasky hoax.) I seriously doubt that you'll ever
find the Japan Playboy piece included in a collection of Pynchon works under
the author's name. 

All I'm saying is that it is still apocryphal -- even after all this time
there has been no evidence produced which validates its authenticity or
Pynchon's assent, or which refutes the alternative possibilities. It's
certainly possible that he said some or all of those things, it's even
possible that he said them in the full knowledge that they were going to be
published as an "interview" in Playboy Japan, and that he gave his blessing
to the project; it's also possible (equally, if not more so, in my opinion),
that he didn't. Are you flatly denying the possibilities that it is
inauthentic, or that Pynchon wasn't aware that his comments were going to be
published? If so, on what evidence are you basing that denial?

>> 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.

He's making fun of himself, isn't he? The way the "reclusive author"
mystique he has nurtured over the years has actually become his brand name.

best