re Playboy Japan interview WAS pynchon-l-digest V2 #4170

[pynchonoid]

NeedaLife:
Why you are so invested in defending its authenticity
is beyond me. [...]

That could be because I'm defending its ambiguity and
asserting only the possibility that the interview is
authentic (based on the evidence I've seen) in the
face of jbor's insistence that the interview is
without doubt a fraud.  This is a nuanced position,
and it's understandable that NeedaLife doesn't quite
get it, dumb as he's demonstrated himself to be on so
many occasions here.

The status of the interview remains ambiguous, in
several respects.  Ambiguous, because we don't have
Pynchon's remarks in an original English
transcription. Ambiguous because it hasn't been
established beyond doubt, yet, that he consented to
the interview (established by Pynchon himself or
through a credible spokesperson), although Playboy
Japan has defended the authenticity of the interview,
and others report that Pynchon did consent to be
interviewed by a journalist who was already a friend
and acquaintance. (Nor has it been demonstrated,
conclusively, that Pynchon did not consent to an
interview; although the lack of a statement by
Pynchon, or lack of a news about legal action by
Pynchon against Playboy Japan offers strong
circumstantial evidence that he did in fact consent to
the interview that was published.)

NeedaLife
[...]But the 
fact that words purporting to be an interview of
Pynchon were published in a 
Japanese Playboy is no more authoritative than rumours
of its falseness.[...]

This could be true except for several pieces of facts
ignored in the rush  to set up this false equivalence:
 that Playboy Japan defends the interview, that
other sources suggest the interview is authentic and
was authorized by Pynchon, that no credible denial of
the interview has been forthcoming from Pynchon or his
agent or anybody else, and that the political content
of the interview is of a piece with what Pynchon has
written elsewhere.

To NeedaLife I could say "Why you are so invested in
attacking its authenticity is beyond me" but the
answer is simple:  the knee-jerk reflex that leads him
to claim the opposite of whatever I write on
pynchon-l, no matter how stupid it makes him look.

Keith - one thing to consider, while we wait for the
p-lister who called Melanie Jackson's office to tell
us what transpired, is that doubts about this
interview began with claims - primarily by jbor - that
no such interview had been published.  The copy of the
magazine that I provided to Pynchon Notes demolished
that objection. Pynchon Notes inclusion of the
interview in its bibliography is another demonstrable
fact - it's not verification that the interview is
authentic, of course, but it's another piece of
evidence in a chain. I do know that PN has more
information that hasn't been shared publicly; maybe
that will come to light someday - perhaps somebody is
researching and writing an article on this issue. 

Until somebody digs deeper and gets a denial, or
affirmation, from Pynchon or a credible spokesperson,
it's not possible to definitively prove the interview
to be a fraud or authentic.  I continue to enjoy the
ambiguity and the discussion this has generated. And
it is funny to see jbor stoop to passing around rumors
that he has taken no steps to corroborate in order to
muddy the waters.  It's part of what makes his
lit-crit pontifications about Pynchon's texts so
amusing - the high-minded professor with feet of clay,
or perhaps that should be mud.

=====
http://pynchonoid.org
"everything connects"


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! 
http://my.yahoo.com