afterthought per Ray and Richard

[Robin Landseadel]

On Nov 27, 2009, at 1:01 AM, Carvill, John wrote:

> Monte Davis:
> << Does anyone really think it's happenstance or idiosyncrasy that  
> the creator
> of that voice is so private a man?

I think it always has been and always will be due to paranoia.

> Does anyone really believe that when the
> unauthorized biographies appear, when assiduous reconstruction tells  
> us what
> his Boeing performance reviews said and where he bought burritos in
> Manhattan Beach and how he met Melanie Jackson, any of it will be  
> more than
> Jules Siegel on carefully trimmed toast points? >>

Yes. It always is, for anybody. Proust may have though he was covering  
his traces but he fooled no-one but himself.

> << I would sooner expect to find a snowball
> at the center of the sun than an "explicit authorial statement" in  
> Pynchon. >>
>
> Hmmmm. What about when he tells us to 'check out' Ishmael Reed? Just  
> one example.

A: I think the author is explicitly asking us to check out Ishmael Reed 
—"Mumbo Jumbo," if you're into that whole specific reference thing, man.

B: By implication he is giving credence to certain "occult" systems on  
display in "Mumbo Jumbo."

> Again, not sure how this fits. As a general question, I still don't  
> get it, sorry. Guess I don't hang out with enough Nobel laureates  
> eh? Are you suggesting that there is nothing of interest to be known  
> about Pynchon the person?

Monte's suggesting there is no direct connection between the paranoia  
of the books and the paranoia of the real flesh and blood human being,  
Thomas Pynchon. I think Pynchon's awareness and knowledge of the CIA  
are an essential parts of that paranoia. I think the biographies,  
authorized or no, will bear that out.

> Cheers
> J