What I happened upon....

[B C Johnson]

No, I believe the point I was trying to and did make is that this business 
was insignificant, then stayed insignificant, is presently insignificant, 
and will remain so, until such time as some other tidbit replaces it.  Some 
will, indeed, seek enlightenment from such facts, while some like you will 
start looking for Jackson Pynchon's pic on a milk carton, while others will 
give up and start following a band around, or something.  People use data 
for many mostly non-nefarious things, Ultimate Truth being only a selection 
on the menu.

The right to privacy is obviously personal, and can be reserved (TRP) or 
waived (American Idol) as one prefers.  Perching in the high mountains with 
a camera and telephoto lens (or redirecting a KD-11 satellite, or whatever) 
obtrudes on this right (there being no express on implied waiver in 
suntanning on a yacht in the Med).  However, if one had been walking in the 
street one day only to look up and see Jackie O taking a ride on one of the 
lions in front of the library, one would be justified in taking a snap, such 
behavior implying a waiver of her right to privacy (she coulda bought her 
own lion).  Applying these simple principles to the case at hand, two 
questions arise:  was Pynchon the Younger's right to privacy violated by 
republishing information about him found on the internet, and did this 
republication expose him to some sort of enhanced risk of harm?  The answers 
lie in the word "republication".  The information was already out there, in 
the most public forum imaginable (thus far).  Whether the original 
publication of this information violated his right of privacy is really up 
to him, although ( as has been previously noted) performing in a rock band, 
presumably in front of an audience, implies to me at least a partial waiver 
of his right of privacy, which he can remedy by either giving up rock and 
roll or audiences or both.  You can't have it both ways.  Same goes for the 
Warren Report quality photograph.  Because this data is merely republished, 
swelling the ranks of his admirers by the 30 or 40 people in the known world 
who give anything even faintly resembling a damn, I simply cannot envision 
any scenario in which Pynchon the Younger's waiver of his personal right to 
privacy has become any more waivery, nor his celebrity-based positional risk 
enhanced.  What's the worst could happen -- a radical fringe group of 
postmodernists kidnaps him, demanding as ransom that his father finish 
something already?

As for vivian.darkbloom at gmail.com, my point about Dmitri is this:  he has 
apparently not been forced into hiding from the public perforce of his 
father's literary celebrity at any point in his life.  His professors at 
Harvard might have made the connection; his cohort in the Army less likely; 
his rivals on the racing circuit even less so, and so on.  These are rather 
public forms of conduct, yet I don't think Dmitri is holed up in some sort 
palace of solitude in Montreux (well, maybe "palace" and "Montreux" -- those 
Nabokovs know how to live!), hiding from fat tourists demanding to know 
whether or not his father was a dirty old man.  He has made significant 
waivers of his own right to privacy, on his own terms (his father never 
figured prominently in Formula One circles).  The point that maybe we should 
wait 10 or 15 years to see what J.P. does on his own is, well, a point. 
This process will occur with or without our approbation, it being entirely 
his own damn business (see second paragraph).

Regards,

Ben

P.S. What exactly is "pseudo-guff"?  Is it distinct from actual or pure 
guff?  Is it anything like "pish-tush"?
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sean Mannion" <third_eye_unmoved at hotmail.com>
To: <bjohnson02 at insightbb.com>; <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 10:13 PM
Subject: Re: What I happened upon....


> >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.
>
> Ah, so now it's all insignificant. Good stuff. Nice to see you try to gain 
> some distance from that pseudo-guff about 'The Light' you were trying to 
> peddle earlier. What, should we maybe give the kid another ten-fifteen 
> years to earn his significance and see if he merits 'Dmitri' status as the 
> mystical 'key-holder' to unlock all that hitherto unknown significance.
>
>
>>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?
>
> Yeah, and if I ever clamp eyes on a National Equirier Pynchon-Special, no 
> doubt I'll be the first to let you know.
>
> What was the point, really....
>