WE KNEW IT! We knew it here from that writer-handyman guy who overheard a phone call InWoodstock...there are bits of Pynchon in Dylan, I say, have said...

[J Tracy]

 I would not be surprised if Pynchon knew Dylan, but the paragraph does not hold together logically. The first obvious break in logic comes in this line: "The phone call, and that detail entered the story, which out of respect or obliviousness didn't then connect the dots. “  It would be the writer, not the story who ( not which) out of respect or obliviousness would connect the dots( a story cannot be oblivious or act out of respect) .  But confusion also comes from the question of who the interviewing writer/journalist is. That confusion is seriously amplified by the next sentence:  “The novelist was telling the journalist that Thomas Pynchon introduced him to Bob Dylan.”  Who is the novelist in this sentence.? Isn’t Pynchon the novelist who was being talked to? It’s like saying the Pynchon was telling the the journalist that Thomas Pynchon introduced him( who is the him?) to Bob Dylan. I honestly don’t see how this can be forced into coherence. 

This is not an argument to be argumentative. i was sincerely curious, but the paragraph felt strained and blurry, so I re-read it and felt even more like something was off so I tried to parse the logic, which IMO fails to cohere.



> On Feb 11, 2026, at 10:11 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> ??????
> 
> "The novelist was telling the journalist that Thomas Pynchon introduced him
> to Bob Dylan."
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 10:03 AM Laura Kelber <laurakelber at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> The novelist was sitting for a print interview about his book? Not
>> Pynchon.
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2026, 8:35 AM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> https://x.com/whitecitycinema/status/2021440442177552639?s=20
>>> --
>>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>> 
>> 
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l