Pynchon fax

[jbor]

>> 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.

I've not said that Playboy Japan is nothing, but it's certainly not Paris
Review. I think you're overreacting ridiculously; it's entirely reasonable
that he would ignore it altogether (if, indeed, he is even aware of it).

I was under the impression that it wasn't a Playboy Japan journalist he was
supposed to have given the "interview" to. That there now seems to be
confusion about whether it was a "talk" or a "chat" or an "interview" (let
alone when and where it took place and in what language, why there was never
an English transcription, and why it was never published outside Japan), and
over the interviewer's relationship with the publication, makes its status
even more dubious. Has anyone approached Pynchon's agent or publisher to try
to validate its authenticity?

>> 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'm not sure on which planet "collection of Pynchon works" means
"bibliography". If ever Pynchon puts out a collection of his non-fiction
pieces, introductions to other works, public statements etc I doubt that
he'll include the Playboy Japan piece. I agree that Pynchon Notes would
include it, like the Tinasky letters or the J.C. Batchelor article claiming
Pynchon and Salinger are one and the same, in its Bibliography as part of
the overall Pynchon story -- I'm not sure what John or the other editors
actually make of it, however.

I'm keeping an open mind until reliable evidence is produced; brain-dead
denials of other possibilities, including the possibility that Pynchon
wasn't aware that his words were going to be published in Playboy Japan,
don't constitute reliable evidence, no matter how often they're parroted.

***

>> The way the "reclusive author"
>> mystique he has nurtured over the years has actually become his brand
>> name.
>> 
>I don't think that I agree to you when you say he's nurtured this "reclusive
> author"-thing:

[...]
> 
> He began avoiding public appearances at the beginning of his career

Precisely. And that is why reviewers and journalists continually refer to
him as a "reclusive author". Pynchon has chosen to remain aloof, and that
has become his trademark. There is a mystique about Pynchon the man which
sets him apart from Roth, DeLillo, Updike, and even Gaddis when he was
alive. His self-characterisation on The Simpsons plays on this.

> 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.

I'm not sure that his choice (and he wasn't in the spotlight until _V._ was
published in 1963) had anything to do with McCarthyism and the
anti-communist witchhunts of the '50s, and these certainly haven't had any
bearing on why he has decided to maintain his avoidance over the next four
decades.

***

> Foster was indeed *not* put to the task by Pynchon
> himself.  He discusses this on pp. 192-96 of his book, for anyone who cares
> to read it.

I thought I recall reading that Pynchon was aware of Foster's investigations
and that he had given the project his blessing (and had even assisted
Foster). Perhaps I'm wrong. I think "hoax" is exactly the right word for the
way the Tinasky letters were collected and published.

best