Pynchon's reply

[Michael Bailey]

against my usual habit, I'm top-posting here.
Rob's thoughts (thotz?) are savory, and my reactions don't really fit
inline responding, but I do have some "thotz" that are somewhat
related.

I also have had some friendly off-list correspondence with The Dude,
and certainly don't begrudge him the 14,4 that I think Tore stated the
letter went for.
Having the, what-d-ye-call-it, holograph? of the letter would be a
thrill for a collector...
the thrill for me (if I were Hollander) would be having had the
response, not so much holding the paper.

So it's a mutually beneficial transaction.
If I had such a letter - I would probably eventually sell it myself.

The reason being, is, (don't you love that locution?) it isn't the
response I exactly would have wanted.  But I would eventually come to
agree with it...
that is to say, if I developed theories about an author's writing, and
approached the author with them, what is he supposed to do or say?

I mean, if they are crap theories, the man should just ignore them and
their author.

If they are well-thought-out, then they belong in the realm of
"writing-about" - and they have been placed there now, and I think
they adorn that place.

But what would you have him say? "Let's get together and discuss my books"
-- no, instead he says something much more generous: "I think you could write"

------ here's a passage from The Modern Word where he also encouraged
another writer:
"He wanted to show my short story to his New York agent, but, before
he had the chance, I rolled the manuscript up and set it on fire like
a torch in the night as I bicycled nude down the main drag. Ervin had
just paid the rent on my flat in Redondo beach to give me an
opportunity to finish the piece. When I told him that it had all gone
up in smoke, he wasn't upset, and he went on to say that destroying my
work had tremendous positive connotations, telling him that I wasn't
egocentric about my writing and could walk away from it any time I
wanted."
(for "Ervin" read TRP)
http://themodernword.com/pynchon/pynchon_biography.html -------

But since writing fiction wasn't what Mr H would wind up doing, the
letter would not be something he would want to keep forever like the
"first dollar bills" you see up on restaurant walls sometimes.

At least, that's how I unpack it.


Rob Jackson wrote:
> Maybe I'm reading it wrongly ...
>
> Pynchon wrote one letter to Hollander back in 1981 and plainly told him he
> was barking up the wrong tree ... the comments Pynchon makes in the letter
> aren't just about releasing a compilation of the short stories, they're also
> directed at an interpretation or interpretations put forward in a letter or
> (more likely, on the basis of the comments about "responding to your
> letters" and the amusing sign-off contrasting "silence" with "English") a
> series of letters we haven't seen ... Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume
> that Hollander was floating some of his interpretive ideas in these letters
> which he developed later on into his critical articles ...?
>


> Pynchon seems to be saying quite plainly in the reply that Hollander is
> barking up the wrong tree ... Hollander keeps barking up that tree for
> 25-odd years nevertheless ... Note that Hollander's interpretations are
> absolutely predicated on imputing intentionality to the author ... Wouldn't
> it be more "logical" (to cite "Mr. Spock") to believe the author's own
> contradiction of such an imputation than to suggest that he'd actively write
> a false letter of discouragement to someone he doesn't know from Adam ... ?
>
> Now Hollander turns around and seemingly betrays not only the author's
> privacy but his own interpretive wrongheadedness for a sack of cash ... I
> mean, good luck to the guy for the windfall and all ... but isn't there
> something wrong with that picture too?
>
> I'm of the opinion that all the Wanda Tinasky, Unabomber, CIA stuff over the
> years has actually done a huge disservice to both the man and his work ...
> so perhaps am viewing the ramifications in a harsh light and do apologise to
> Hollander if there's more to it than just that.
>
> best regards
>
>>
>> Dear Charles Hollander,
>>
>>   It's nothing personal-- only that this year my new year's
>> resolutions include no complaining and no free advice to anybody about
>> what they should be doing with their lives, and responding to your
>> letters would have meant doing one or the other.
>>
>>   At the same time, though, you write too well for me to be
>> discouraging you from it,  I just don't think you ought to be writing
>> about me. The sad truth is that you're giving me much too much credit.
>> My own research is nowhere near as deep or as conscientious as yours.
>> It is, in fact, as shallow as I think I can get away with, because I
>> don't write "novels of ideas."  Plot and character come first, just
>> like with most other folks's stuff, and the heavy thotz and
>> capitalized references and shit are in there to advance action, set
>> scenes, fill in characters and so forth, and the less of it I have to
>> do, the better for me cause I'm lazy.  Sorry to have to be the one to
>> tell you.  If you reverse polarity and read for mistakes, you'll see
>> this-- there are more, what Mr. Spock calls "errors", in Gravity's
>> Rainbow, for instance, than there are true facts.  And this is the
>> result of research habits and procedures about which "slovenly" is as
>> kind as one can get,
>>
>>   But, there I go-- complaining again.
>>
>>   So, as for collecting and publishing those old short stories, the
>> answer is no. It was nice of you to want to believe I had some
>> underlying coherent vision in mind, but I didn't. All it is is a bunch
>> of early attempts-- insufferably smart-assed, juvenile, and worst of
>> all not thought out.  Viking is also making noises about reprinting
>> them, and they are getting no for an answer just like you.
>>
>>   As long as I've been complaining, I might as well make with the
>> free advice here-- you are too good to be wasting your time and energy
>> writing about somebody else's stuff.  You ought to be doing your own.
>> If your March 20th letter is an indication, you already see this and
>> are doing something about it, so I don't feel like that much of a
>> busybody telling you.
>>
>>   Of course silence is hard to interpret.  If it wasn't they'd call
>> it "English," or something.
>>
>>   Yours truly,
>>
>>
>>   Thomas Pynchon
>>
>



-- 
"For the moment not caring who you're supposed to be registered as.
For the moment anyway, no longer who the Caesars say you are." - GR, p
136