What I happened upon....

[Sean Mannion]

I'm sorry, I'm gonna have another go at explaining what exactly I think is 
wrong with the whole debacle, before I try to forget all about it. For me at 
least, the main issues here are simply those concerning 'bad taste' and an 
unhealthy lack of respect; I don't see any insinuations of personal 
characters,or alarms-to-safety, or any instances of over-zealous 
political-correctness, because there simply aren't any; these are 
non-issues, and are therefore not up for discussion. This'll be a long one, 
but bear with me.

I'll repeat (roughly) what I said in the previous email I sent out, and I'll 
elaborate because I think those points are worth making clearly and 
unambigously. If anyone is unduly or personally offended, I apologise in 
advance, those aren't my aims.

I think the whole thing sounds creepy, no-less because it parallels the 
following news article that I took an exceptional dislike to (see below), 
quite some time ago, and gives a good indication of where I stand on the 
Pynchon/Celebrity frount. I think it warrants being termed an invasion of 
privacy, principally because Thomas Pynchon has taken very adequate measures 
to safeguard his own privacy from the public domain, and by extension, that 
of his family. Sure, Dave, it's on a public domain, but that public domain 
has nothing to do with Thomas Pynchon, or the works of Thomas Pynchon, nor 
has it been signposted otherwise, and it's public availability doesn't alter 
the fact that there are lines drawn into respecting certain boundaries; 
because, again, we're making a teenage kid into a discussion topic within 
the bounds of his father's literary status. And again, if Pynchon has tried 
his utmost to avoid his own celebrity status, we can be fairly sure that he 
wouldn't want his son being dragged into discussion by association, nor 
should there be any reason why he should be.

I'm sure there are manifold ways in which some people (if obssessive enough 
to do so) could mirror the 'research' that the journalist uses in tracing 
Pynchon, in the link below. That, however, doesn't make the act of doing so 
any less disrespectful, and it doesn't mean we should think Mr. Pynchon's 
reaction would be any less negative.

remember this: http://www.suntimes.co.za/1998/06/07/lifestyle/life01.htm

The moral of the story? "Just because you can do something doesn't mean to 
say you should". The journalist's justification is, as follows, "By taking 
this photo," he says, "I, like Pynchon, was trying to say something about 
our society. We have an inimitable and deep-seated curiosity and we 
shouldn't be ashamed of it. The paparazzi are the people's proxy."

My response: fucking bullshit. Rationalise that kind of behavour all you 
want, but the truth has more to do with the fact that you more than likely 
just wanted another notch on your fucking scoop-sheet. Curiosity maybe be 
your reason, but it sure as hell isn't a justification, and there are lines 
of integrity and respect that should be drawn here.

Equally so, in this case. Respect the man's wishes for god sake, people. It 
isn't self-righteous indignation, it's a matter of respect. And so to the 
following hyperbole:

"So it is with "Pynchoneering", in which we (me too, foax) try to 
reverse-engineer a model of The Writer, from the scant ephemera of His 
public life, in hopes of finding that Key.  It's o.k. -- cargo cults and 
Mormons do the same thing.  We do this not only to reach the Inner Light, 
but because it's fun, it's cat-and-mouse, and nobody gets hurt.  I sincerely 
hope that no one on this list is sufficiently disingenuous to deny the 
existence of the Game -- just don't be so sure that The Writer isn't in on 
the Game, too"

Again: bullshit (and less of the 'we', please). I sincerely hope that no one 
on this list is sufficiently disingenuous to affirm that the use of a 
fairground mystic's vocabulary allows one to think of plain old-fashioned 
snooping as a virtue, or a worth past-time of an intelligent reader. Jazz it 
up in as many metaphors as you like, couch it obilque cod-mystical 
references if that is your wont, but as Wittgenstein says of games, 'You can 
make your definition correct by expressly restricting it to [certain] 
games'. To summarise, there are rules at play here, folks, and someone made 
them expressly clear years back. I also think that Ben's doing a great 
disservice to the both the Pynchon catalogue and the human attention span if 
suggesting that the re-construction of the life of the author merits 'a key' 
where the text does not.

While I understand the concerns behind the email you sent off Dave, I still 
really wish you hadn't. Why? for the same reasons that made me ill-at-ease 
with the recent discussion in the first instance; because while - as you 
yourself admit - this is a closed-circuit, non-google-able discussion list, 
and while presuming that nobody here would be sufficiently malicious enough 
to use that information in a damaging way, and considering that the 
connections between Thomas Pynchon and that site were obscure enough to only 
be found when looking for something exceptionally specific and considering 
that it presumably contains no contact details for the individual in 
question,  it really doesn't hold any legitimately concern for any of us 
whatsoever. It just isn't our business, full stop. Any responsible and 
intelligent parent warns their children about the internet these days. We 
should presume this to be the case, and therefore assume we have no 
business, any of us, for contacting those people whatsoever, no matter what 
anyone's distanced concerns.

This isn't a matter of dislogic, as you put it - because in truth, their 
privacy isn't just in danger of being invaded, it is being invaded (in this 
specific regard) by our discourtesy, and drawing people's attention to the 
fact that they're going into the realm bad-taste is enough, I don't feel 
that sending an email in proxy of the entire p-list (without their consent), 
telling the concerned party that some of us are enjoying playing the 'family 
resemblence' game with some online photographs will inspire much confidence 
(I'm only stopping of short of the term 'potential nut-bar' because I 
presume they are kind, responsible people).

Again, I don't mean any personal offence, but, c'mon guys, there are 
boundaries out there.


Sean.