What I happened upon....

[B C Johnson]

It isn't as if we slipped the boy a mickey and sent him out for some 
breadfruit.  The only person's whose privacy has been in the very least 
trenched upon is the Pynchon lad, who has thus far made no public comment. 
On the contrary, certain insignificant data purporting to represent his 
participation in a band, and alleged photographic evidence thereof, was put 
up on the Interweb, presumably with his knowledge and consent, and was 
noticed by the 30 or 40 people in the Known World who would give something 
even faintly resembling a damn.  What do these data tell us about The Writer 
or his Works?  Answering for myself, I surmise that, in the Pynchon 
household, the strict anti-Telecaster policies of my youth do not obtain. I 
further surmise that the oath of silence taken by The Writer does not apply 
to all those who live there.  By the way, has anyone noticed that there is 
no way to confirm any of this?  What's The Joke, and who is The Jokester? 
When do we get to the ultraparadoxical phase?
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sean Mannion" <third_eye_unmoved at hotmail.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: What I happened upon....


> 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.
>