Pynchon's reclusiveness: Life Magazine article?

[Paul Mackin]

Victoria Harding wrote:

>Dear Pynchonians,
>
>Otto's message about Pynchon's appearance on The Simpsons and his
>pixyish way of being a recluse reminds me to ask the assembled
>aficionados here about a Life Magazine feature I think I remember from
>the 60s or even late 50s? maybe not so early, with Pynchon's
>reclusiveness/elusiveness turned into a photo-tease in which he
>participated, views of him from the back, in silhouette, blurred as he
>crossed the image, and in other indiscernible ways, with a few childhood
>pix mixed in.  
>
>Is this a real memory?  I have always thought it was, and have hoped to
>see it mentioned here to confirm it.  Because of this memory, Pynchon's
>supposed reclusiveness has always seemed to be a comically perverse form
>of publicity campaign.  
>
>(But of course a pale imitation of Salinger in this, a real recluse in
>comparison to the Pynchon invisibility circus, genuinely inaccessible --
>except through his work, big exception, and, one can think, the point of
>genuine reclusiveness.  Life did do a feature on him, I know, but
>without his cooperation, I think.)
>
>In any case, any info about the Pynchon Life Magazine article I think I
>recall will be welcome:  Google hasn't helped.
>
>Victoria
>  
>
Hi Victoria,

Off the top of my head I don't remember Pynchon being yet famous as a 
recluse as early as your memory takes you.  Could it have been some 
other famous recluse? You would have remembered if it were Garbo.  But 
Kubrick might get confused with Pynchon without difficulty. My guess is 
you saw Kubrick (also a famous recluse) photographed in Life in the 
mid-fifties.


P.

>
>
>
>Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 06:36:01 +0200
>From: Otto <ottosell at yahoo.de>
>Subject: Re: NP re. fake pics and other hoaxes
>
>Sorry, but I think you're exaggerating a little bit. First of all is 
>Pynchon no victim, and he certainly doesn't feel so; watch his first 
>Simpsons-appearance. He's making fun of his "reclusiveness" (or what the
>
>media are making of it).
>
>If only the hoaxers are the reason for the hoaxes why isn't someone 
>like, let's say DeLillo or Frantzen, a "victim" too? Why and especially 
>only Pynchon? He made the first step. Remember the Irwin Corey 
>appearance at the National Book Award in 1974.
>
>I did only read those three Wanda-letters that were online and it was 
>indeed as obvious as that stupid photo that the person who had written 
>those letters wasn't him.
>
>Mostly illegal -- well, I'll let Mrs Jacksons lawyers to decide this.
>Not ethical -- it definitely wasn't very nice of Mr. Anderson to play 
>the Pynchon-card to get his letters read.
>Abusing his right to privacy -- well, James Boone (who is now working 
>for CNN, did see him several times recently) did that.
>
>According to the interview I seem to have missed the denial. If someone 
>could give me the information please.
>
>regards
>
>Otto
>
>
>
>
>  
>