Pynchon fax

[Otto]

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 12:39 AM
Subject: Re: Pynchon fax

http://isthistomorrow.com/archive/pynchon.html

> >> 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).

Right, but the Playboy, even if it's "only" PB-Japan, isn't nothing. If the
"interview" (I have trouble calling this an interview, there are no
questions and answers) is a hoax and he has never talked to anybody from
Tokyo he's got the right, if not even responsibility to demand a
counterstatement.

> 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

I'm not sure what you mean by calling it "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

I don't think that any major writer would allow the Playboy to present a
faked interview.

> (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.
>

Depends on how you understand "collection" -- if you mean a printed
bibliography you might be wrong already. I haven't got Pynchon Notes 46 yet
but Doug says that the Japan Playboy piece is mentioned there.

> All I'm saying is that it is still apocryphal -- even after all this time

This may be true, but "apocryphal" isn't necessarily negative. Whether
authentic or a hoax, like the Tinasky-Letters it has become part of his
"story."

> 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?
>

1. I'm not denying that it might be a hoax. We've all seen enough of those
internet hoaxes that it best could be possible. But I don't believe that it
is the case.

2. I don't believe that he was unaware that his comments would be published
if he has really talked to someone from Playboy Japan. He must have been
aware that it would be a little sensation for someone with his reputation
to talk to the Playboy.

> >> 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.
> >

Let me add here that even if the Simpsons are on prime time they're still
subversive, presenting a critical view on America.

> > 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?

Yes, of course. Like every intelligent person he's able to laugh at himself.
Only fools take themselves too serious. But what is he actually doing in
that clip? The blurb he gives to Marge's novel isn't exactly positive. He's
inviting people at random on the street to his home. A "reclusive" author
can be interesting to some people even if they don't care for his writing,
just because he's avoiding the media circus. In my interpretation of this
he's making much fun of all those people who are interested in his person
but not in his books.

> The way the "reclusive author"
> mystique he has nurtured over the years has actually become his brand
> name.
>
> best
>

I don't think that I agree to you when you say he's nurtured this "reclusive
author"-thing:

"Pynchon himself rejects any characterizations of him as a recluse, telling
CNN that "my belief is that recluse is a code word generated by journalists
... meaning, 'doesn't like to talk to reporters.'""
http://cgi.cnn.com/US/9706/05/pynchon/video1.html

This is where the word "reclusive" he's referring to in the Simpsons-clip
comes from.

He began avoiding public appearances at the beginning of his career when
McCarthyism and anti-communist witch-hunts were still going on in the USA.
For a writer like him enough reason to be a little shy I'd say.

Otto