Pynchon Japan Playboy

[Tim Strzechowski]

I realize you keep referring back to the apparent anonymity of the
interviewer as the basis for what you find most questionable in the
credibility of the Playboy Japan piece.  Whether or not an "interviewer" is
mentioned elsewhere in the edition (e.g., table of contents) is for others
who have the whole edition in their possession to answer; I merely have a
copy of the page(s) in question.

At the top it says "talk by Thomas Pynchon," which I read as meaning a
transcription of something he said, whether it was initiated by an
interviewer's questions or not.  For all I know, there may be nuances to
journalistic practices in other countries like Japan that would make this
sort of byline perfectly reasonable.

The fact that no one or someone or anyone cannot make "head or tail" out of
the translated version requires we remember that this *is* a translation,
and probably a loose one at that.  Discounting the credibility of the
"talk/interview" is sorta like shooting the translator.

Respectfully


>
> I thought the argument was that it was an interview. Usually when you
> interview someone (and again, who was the interviewer?) you have an
> opportunity to ask them to clarify their meaning if what they say doesn't
> seem to make sense. That obviously didn't happen here. It's the fact that
> *no-one* (not "someone") has been able to make head nor tail of either
> translated version of the comment that is the proof of the pudding.
>
> Feel free to continue to disagree, but perhaps some textual support might
> help your position.
>
> best
>