Pynchon fax

[joeallonby]

My take on Pynchon as a recluse has always been "How do you see and
experience the truth in order to write about it if everybody knows that you
are the famous author?"

The act of observation changes that which is observed.

I see Pynchon's reticence as the author's version of a duck blind.

I'm just sayin'. Ya know?

on 5/1/04 7:04 PM, jbor at jbor at bigpond.com wrote:

>>> 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
> 
>