Pynchon Japan Playboy

[Tim Strzechowski]

Oh....  Thanks, Rob.  While I didn't know that my previous post in any way
contradicts what you just clarified, it's always comforting to see you get
the last word.  Bravo, man!

As anyone who has gone to Otto's website knows, the Playboy Japan
talk/interview was by Motokazu Ohno.  Of course, this may be a real name or
a pseudonym, but a byline for this piece is offered at
http://www.ottosell.de/pynchon/playboy.htm .  So the Manta of Doubt repeated
so often ("who was the interviewer?") is resolved.  It's a confirmed piece
of writing with a byline.

But wait.  What if this person doesn't exist?  Does anyone actually *know*
this Mr/s Ohno?  If no one has seen this person, and all we have is the
empirical evidence of text to "prove" existence, is that enough?  Someone
get Pynchon on the horn and ask him what *he* thinks about this.

I'm not a journalist (on either end of the world), so the difference between
an "interview" and a "talk" would seem to me to depend upon the presence of
interviewer's questions within the text.  As it stands, the Playboy Japan
piece seems more a transcription of a rap Pynchon gave (whether knowingly or
unknowingly, it's immaterial) and, if it is truly off-the-cuff, it doesn't
surprise me that a phrase like the long-debated "rodeo clown" might seem
like a nonsensical phrase, for any number of reasons:

1.  It could be a translation quirk, as I've suggested.

2.  It could be a metaphor that the "talker" used (but perhaps in retrospect
might have revised to clarify his meaning).

A writer of Pynchon's abilities can still make mistakes, mix metaphors,
write a comma splice, etc.  As a writer, we all do this and *revise*.  If
this were a "talk" that was merely transcribed (from, say, a recording, or a
glass held to a hotel room wall) I can see the inevitable poorly chosen
metaphor occasionally creeping in.  We all do it when we speak (well, some
of us here would probably endlessly clarify our positions to perfection,
too).

Point is, just because it *seems* to have no meaning, it doesn't mean it
*is* meaningless.  Let be be the finale of seem, folks.

Respectfully,

Tim (with the long last name)




> > Now, now.  Just four days ago Terrence (attributing you) said the
"interview
> > reads like a hoax" and you replied:
> >
> > "Sorry Terrance, I've never said anything like this.
> >
> > best"
> >
> > No disrespect intended, but please keep your argument straight.
>
> Actually, this is what Terrance wrote:
>
> > I agree with Robert, this Playboy Japan
> > "interview" reads like a hoax because it what Pynchon is reported to
> > have said is directly contradicted by everything he has said or written
> > elsewhere.
>
> While the published comments do seem like they could be the words of some
> nutjob hoaxer, and not Pynchon, it's not because they're "directly
> contradicted by everything he has said or written elsewhere." I've never
> said anything like that, and I've always allowed that Pynchon *might* have
> said something similar to what appeared, but that if he did it was most
> likely not with his awareness or permission that his remarks would be
> published. But, surely, the fact that the "interview" still remains
> unconfirmed after all this time throws further doubt on its credibility.
>
> And, if someone has been credited as the "interviewer", and that name has
> been known for over two years, I wonder how come it has been such a
problem
> tracking this person down in the meantime to confirm the circumstances of
> the interview: how the arrangement with Pynchon was made, where the
> "interview" took place, whether there's an original transcript in English
> etc. If it's kosher it's a pretty big thing, after all, Pynchon's first
ever
> "interview". You'd think someone would have cared enough to find out ....
>
> best
>
>