Talk:Thomas Pynchon/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Deletions 6 Jan 2006

For example, the satirical newspaper The Onion published an article mocking the American media coverage of Elián González; in the article, Pynchon and Salinger both come out of seclusion to tell the American public something vitally important, but all news organizations ignore them in favor of the Elián story. ^[1]

1. ^ "CNN Still Releasing News Piled Up During Elián González Saga". The Onion 11 October 2000 (link verified 18 December 2005).

• Relevant?

I say yes, if only because we have pitifully few sources actually indicating anything about Pynchon's "media mystique". Anville 19:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• It's trivial, has already dated, and doesn't add anything to what the Salm quote already says. It was barely amusing in the first place. Too much space in the entry is already devoted to gossip and irrelevancies. 58.164.62.144 07:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It is remotely possible that Paris Hilton may be aware of Salm's criticism. In episode #1.22 of The O.C., Hilton makes a cameo appearance as a graduate student writing her thesis on "Magical Realism in American Literature," and asks Seth (the protagonist) if he's ever read Gravity's Rainbow, describing it as Pynchon's "masterpiece."

• Relevant?

Bleh. Probably not; it really only exists to extend the Arthur Salm quotation a little. Anville 19:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

His most recent novel, Mason & Dixon, contains a scene where two characters speculate why heterosexual men find lesbian pornography arousing, casting their explanation in algebraic terms.

• Accurate? Page ref? 60.228.45.49 00:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's accurate. The passage is quoted in Depictions of lesbian sex in pornography; it occurs in chapter 54, on pages 526–7. The characters in question are Tenebrae and 'Thelmer: "Brae has discover'd the sinister Volume in 'Thelmer's Room, lying open to a Copper-plate Engraving of two pretty Nuns, sporting in ways she finds inexplicably intriguing..." They are reading an installment in the "Ghastly Fop" series, this particular one being an abduction fantasy of sorts, involving tattooed Natives, a Chinese feng shui Master, and a Conspiracy of Jesuits employing both diabolickal Instruments of enforc'd Submission and a Steampunk Telegraph fueled by piezoelectrick Fluid...

Rilly, I thought everyone had accepted the idea long ago that, thanks to Thomas Pynchon, a solid grounding in hallucinatory drugs, BDSM technology and elementary calculus is essential to all serious literature students. (Joke?) Anville 19:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• No doubt. I guess it's remotely accurate. The way it's put doesn't really reflect what's going on in the scene and nor does it give a representative impression of Pynchon's technique or themes. The cross-reference isn't a justification - anyone seeking out that scene or the novel for a "depiction of lesbian sex in pornography" is sure to be disappointed!

The "Recurring themes" section still needs a lot of work so it will no doubt get tidied up. 58.164.62.144 07:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Changes 16 Jan

"In the mid-1990s, after many years in which he was believed to be dividing his time between Mexico and northern California, Pynchon moved to New York City; also around this time, he married his agent, Melanie Jackson, and fathered a son, Jackson. The disclosure of his location, not surprisingly, led some to try to track him down."

• As it stood, the section had him inviting Rushdie to dinner in New York in 1990 and then moving to New York "in the mid-1990s". That might have been the case, but the two paragraphs seemed contradictory. I don't know exactly when he moved to New York, or the date of his marriage, but have tidied it up as best I could.

Is there any consensus to delete some more of the trivia (and the footnotes!) cluttering up the article? Shouldn't the main focus of the entry be on Pynchon's published work? Do we really need any more than that introductory sentence about him also being known for "his avoidance of publicity; very few photographs of him have ever been published"? Abaca 20:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

To have any claim to completeness, I believe that we do need more than one sentence, although the sheer mass of unorganized trivia still needs, ahem, editing. If the link farm currently growing at the bottom of the article were trimmed down, and if the "Hoaxes and rumors" section had any references at all, this article would make a decent showing at FAC. Anville 16:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Abaca, please, do not delete any stuff at all. Anything one could possibly even be remotely interested in should be included. If you think the article is too long, there is always a possibility to split it up in sub-articles. For example it is perfectly possible to create an entry called Thomas Pynchon trivia and link that from the article, so that you keep only the most interesting stuff on the mainpage and the trainspotting stuff in its own page. Nixdorf 22:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

* I disagree. Selectivity is a key ingredient of a quality reference article. Comparisons with Wikipedia entries on other of Pynchon's contemporaries who do give interviews, such as John Updike (who has also appeared on The Simpsons a couple of times) or David Foster Wallace, show up just how lop-sided towards journalistic fluff this entry on Pynchon is. The focus should be on Pynchon's life and work, not on revelations that he talked about baseball at dinner with Salman Rushdie or once had a "complex" about his teeth, or on hoaxes and publicity-mongering generated by others. Some of what has been allowed to persist in the current article seems to have been designed to present a negative impression of Pynchon (and his work), perhaps reflecting what one or two contributors are "interested" in conveying, but which is not representative or even-handed or informative for the general reader. Many of the more trivial bits of information could be relocated (though I truly doubt, for example, that the Rushdie or Laurie Anderson or Nirvana tidbits would make the cut in their respective entries), and the "Media aversion" and "Hoaxes" sections should be combined and summarised down to about two or three brief paragraphs at most. For an idea of what a decent reference article on Pynchon might look like, see the entry on J.D. Salinger. Eight footnotes (several of them double-barrelled, many of them merely tabloid journalism) is ridiculous. Abaca 23:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I get your point, and I agree the article could be restructured. However I do not see the need for loosing information for that reason. What is defintaley not true could go, such as the pure hoaxes, I agree. What is true or doubted should stay. Regarding tidbits provided by the Jules Siegel article, Jules stresses (see "Lineland", and his own remarks above) that he is not presenting Mr. Pynchon in an unfavorable light, but fairly and lovingly considering him a friend, and knowing him first-hand he should know. Nixdorf 08:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

While pure hoaxes are certainly not true, they are still worth recording. Word of a hoax propagates because it sounds plausible, and because people find joy or satisfaction in repeating it. As Carl Sagan sez in The Demon-Haunted World, the "genuine scientific paydirt" in UFOs is not what they tell us about aliens, but what they tell us about humans—the way our minds work, what we desire, how we hallucinate. The notions that Pynchon was the Unabomber or that he was really Salinger—we might call such ideas "memes"—say little about the man Thomas R. Pynchon, but they speak of how the world sees that man. Every encyclopaedia article on an author, if its is worth its scholarly salt, records what opinions people have had about that author and their work. There is no reason, a priori, why the record of these opinions should stop with the official litterati, canonized by their preservation in "scholarly journals", as if Social Text and Postcolonial Studies were a kind of amber. We should be concise and scrupulous in reporting what "mystique" a writer like Pynchon has, but we should not skip past it glibly. After all, when Pynchon dies, that will be all which is left—books, inspiring people to scrawl muted post horns in public latrines. Anville 18:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. Nixdorf 18:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

W.A.S.T.E.

This user believes Wikipedia Awaits Silent Trystero's Empire.

Enjoy. Anville 15:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

thomas

who on earth is this Thomas Pynchon guy? please answer me

Pynchon and the Swedish Prize

"Hmmm," I thought, "the lead needs expansion. And wait," I thought again, "we never really return to the bit about Pynchon and the Nobel Prize, do we?" Sifting the wheat from the googlechaff, I found the following sources, which may yet be of some use to us:

• William Grimes, "Toni Morrison Is '93 Winner Of Nobel Prize in Literature". New York Times Book Review 8 October 1993.
• "Early Nobel announcement prompts speculation". CNN Book News, posted online 29 September 1999.
• Andrew Ervin, "Nobel Oblige". Philadelphia City Paper 14–21 September 2000.

I also dug up the following, which may be relevant for the "Wanda Tinasky" rumour:

• "The crying over Lot 49 of Thomas Pynchon's letters". Salon 10 March 1998.

Finally, though Pynchon has yet to receive the Swedish prize, Elfriede Jelinek—who translated Gravity's Rainbow into German—has.

Best, Anville 20:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Royster refs

The Royster pdf is a good summary - thanks for including it. But pretty much all of the info in it has been around for a long time, and Royster is not the original source, so there's no need to cite him for every little detail in the entry. (The 1964 Berkeley rejection was new to me, however, and connects with Oedipa's visit there in Lot 49.) Abaca 10:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I figured I was overcorrecting; generally, I don't care too much about footnoting things like birthdates and parents' names. Thanks. Anville 13:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Still to do

What remains to be done:

• 1998 controversy over correspondence (< 1 paragraph)
• status vis-à-vis the Nobel Prize (to justify remark in lead, < 1 paragraph)
• overview of literary criticism: poststructuralist, hypertextualist, obscurantist, etc. (approx. 2 paragraphs?)
• Incorporate the following remarks of J. K. Grant:

Ask most people who Thomas Pynchon is and chances are they will either have no idea or they will identify him as the author of The Crying of Lot 49. They may be able to name some or all of his other works, but most are unlikely to have read them, even in college literature courses [...] Pynchon, so goes the thinking, is a hugely talented and innovative writer who has made such a name for himself that ignoring his work would be inappropriate; however, the stories in Slow Learner have been dismissed as apprentice work, both V. and Gravity's Rainbow are much too long and complex for the average reader, and Vineland is too recent to have attracted a reliable safety net of critical commentary for the nervous instructor to fall back on."

I imagine the last statement holds even more true for Mason & Dixon, published since Grant wrote A Companion to The Crying of Lot 49.

And so, each year, thousands of students are introduced to the novel and, I'm willing to bet, each year a substantial number of them come away from the experience, despite the best efforts of their instructors, convinced that Pynchon is too difficult—too weird, too clever, too something—for them. This is certainly my experience of teaching Lot 49, and my colleagues assure me it is theirs also.

• Expand the lead (I'd guess around two paragraphs, maybe three), as requested in peer review.
• General shake-down: find sources for remarks left unsourced (where this is reasonable), standardize the periods and parentheses, and so forth.

All this done, I think the article would have a fair showing over at WP:FA. What's more, as of just this moment, the WP article is the sixth Google hit for our reclusive writer—so we better make it good. Anville 14:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Note: it has been rather a while since Grant wrote his Lot 49 companion; his remark Vineland being "too recent to have attracted a reliable safety net of critical commentary" is a little bit outdated (and not just by the publishing of Mason and Dixon, which would fall into both the "too long and complex" and "too new" categories). Nowadays, I think perhaps as many people who have heard of Pynchon will recognize him as the author of Vineland as will recognize him as the author of Lot 49. Just something to keep in mind... Zafiroblue05 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted. Thanks. Anville 12:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Source for Playboy Japan statement?

I can't find a source for Melanie Jackson's denial of the Playboy Japan interview. (I keep jacking into the Matrix and asking it for help, but all it gives me are mirrors of this very article, some more outdated than others.) I tried LexisNexis, but their server keeps spitting me out with an error message, HTTP 405 to be exact. If anyone else who has a LexisNexis subscription would like to try, I suppose it couldn't hurt. And, if anyone knows a better place to look, please suggest such. Anville 14:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Illuminatus! Trilogy

you might be aware of the similarities between gravity's rainbow and The Illuminatus! Trilogy, both released around the same time, both with crazy narrative structures, similar themes, Illuminatus even references several of pynchon's works... so i'd like to invite editors of this page, who know what it takes to get something in the same vein featured, to comment on this article: The Illuminatus! Trilogy. its up for peer review before FAC here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/The_Illuminatus%21_Trilogy. any comments in that peer review welcome. Zzzzz 15:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

thx to everyone who contributed to or commented on this article in the past few weeks. this article is now up for "featured article" status. please go to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Illuminatus! Trilogy to vote Support or Oppose with your comments. Zzzzz 17:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Anybody speak Polish?

I'd really like to know what http://info.galerie.art.pl/galerie/trystero.html says.Anville 10:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I found the perfect lead image. (-; Anville 10:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A beautiful young Polish woman of my acquaintance says that this page roughly translates to "We present every kind of art except multimedia. Trystero leads exhibits with other galleries. It also has a standing collection of graphics, paintings, glass, furniture. It sells art. It also holds local shows: book promotions, art jubilees." No hint of why they chose the name, though. Anville 12:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Kudos

Article is great...especially considering how little info there is about the reclusive (and brillant) subject...well referenced...Wikipedia abides...ka1iban 02:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC) I'd like to add my appreciation for the work which has gone into this. For some reason I never expected to see Pynchon on the front page of Wikipedia. It even reads consistently and coherently, moving from one paragraph to another with a recognisable line of discussion, something which is perhaps the hardest thing to achieve and the nicest bonus in a Wikipedia article. Well done everyone! --Chips Critic 15:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking for everyone who put work into it, thank you very much! It makes me wish there was a level of recognition beyond Featured Article, so we could strive for that next. Anville 16:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Pynchon and the Geordies

In Mason and Dixon, Pynchon includes a good deal of detailed research on the Durham coal trade in the 18th century, and on (broadly) Geordie speech. Most is very accurate, far better than one might expect from an American, or southern English writer - but there are surprising lapses. Does anyone know the source(s)of Pynchon's knowledge here?

Bandalore 16:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection?

This is a featured article on the main page. Shouldn't it be protected? --Davidstrauss 02:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No Raul654 02:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Does that sort of relentless sabotage always happen when an article goes onto the main page? Was it just one sick puppy on a 24-hour shift, or a whole litter of 'em? Abaca 13:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixing references

Wow, the refs on this article are so out of date (not even using templates) that they don't work with my ref converter. Anyone else want to take a stab at it? I guess it has to be done manually. This article goes featured on the front page in two days so this should be done by then. --Cyde Weys 05:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the reference style was an interesting technical feature of the page, and I'm glad it survived for the bulk of the day. According to the Wikipedia guidelines, Harvard referencing is perfectly acceptable, and the links and returns worked effectively. I find the style more reader-friendly than the numeric footnotes (e.g. names as identifiers in the text rather than numbers, no superscript to mess up line spacing, alphabetical reference list at the end of the article.) I noticed that there has been a lot of debate amongst Wikitechies about referencing styles, and I'm sure that there would be a way to make the Harvard style work even better. But now that the dust has settled again I'll work on restoring the Harvard reference style which was in place when the article achieved its Featured status. Abaca 14:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Correction by Jules Siegel

Jules Siegel 16:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I edited the paragraph about my article to remove a demeaning characterization and to correct the erroneous description of what I said about Pynchon's dental problems. I did not attribute any motives to his reconstruction work, which I believe was necessary for reasons of health rather than vanity.

---

To wit:

He was ashamed of his teeth and did not smile much. Many years later, writing to me from Mexico City, where he was having extensive and painful dental restoration done, he described them as "misshapen choppers" and said they had determined his life in some unspecified way that seemed very important to him.

Anville 15:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The quotation is accurate, but, as you can see, I don't say that he was having his teeth fixed because he was ashamed of them. The reconstruction couldn't have been mainly cosmetic, because the next time I saw him (in 1966), he looked about the same. I've removed the link because it refers to a copyright violation that I brought to the attention of the pynchon-l@waste.org list owners. They removed part of the story, but seem to have overlooked the part to which you linked. Please don't relink it. I also changed the headline of this comment to make it a bit more informative. The Wikipedia article appears to me to be a very fine job. My compliments. Jules Siegel 22:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Tax Resistance

Pynchon was a signer of a 1969 war tax resistance vow, along with 447 other American writers and editors. It was published in the January 30, 1969 New York Post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moorlock (talk • contribs)

Thank you for providing a reference. Anville 09:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Liner Notes

I've removed the statement that Pynchon contributed liner notes for a Morphine album, pending verification. I suspect that there is a confusion with the liner notes he wrote for the Lotion album 'Nobody's Cool', mentioned here under 'Themes and influence' (para 3). Abaca 01:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

A quick Google search turns up nothing for Pynchonian liner notes on a Morphine album, and I certainly haven't heard this claim before (unlike most Pynchonalia, which one sees again and again across the Web—"endless, convoluted incest", etc.). I'm inclined to agree with you here, so thanks for catching this glitch. Anville 12:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

category:Eccentrics

I added him to cat: Eccentrics, and it was reverted. any particular reason to revert my edit? He's a deliberately withdrawn guy, but yet he's willing to mock that image on The Simpsons. This, as well as a number of other parts of her personality, make him a reasonable add to 'eccentrics'. ThuranX 19:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The third criterion for including a subject in that category [[2]] is pretty specific: "For living persons on top of the previous requirements, inclusion is only possible if the person also acknowledges "eccentricity" being one of his/her important characteristics." In fact, none of the criteria seem to apply, and thus it is an "inappropriate label". Quite apart from that, the examples you've given don't really or necessarily suggest eccentricity at all. Abaca 00:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. then I'll accede to the reversion. I'm also suggest you remove Salinger from the list, since he hasn't been interviewed in about 50 years, he can't have acknowledged his eccentricity either.ThuranX 02:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't put Salinger on the list, but I agree that he probably should be taken off as well unless the criteria are changed. There seems to be some controversy with that category anyway - there's a box at the top about it being deleted or renamed under Wikipedia's deletion policy or somesuch. I guess what happens is that people get labelled as eccentrics by people who disagree with or dislike them; not that there's anything intrinsically bad about being an eccentric, and some people do happily refer to themselves as such. Pynchon doesn't, to my knowledge, however. Abaca 02:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

By any 'regular joe' definition, both men fit the bill. Any guy whose only recorded voice is on 'The Simpson' while he's depicted with a bag over his head hawking his own misanthropy for profit is 'wierd', or politely, eccentric. Salinger at least can point to his son's abominable 'career' as an 'actor' (see Captain America for details) as a reason to hide, but he too is kinda wacky. Harper Lee's strive for relative anonymity would be close ,but she shows in public, just doesn't write. but the category's standards, I think, call for too much subjective judgement for wiki's usual standards.ThuranX 03:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

New book in December 2006

It's nice to see that the people on PYNCHON-L have already started discussing the book supposed to come out in time for Christmas. Speculation so far centers upon Sofia Kovalevskaya and Mothra. Anville 21:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

The Infobox was added a couple of weeks back, then removed, then reinstated. I don't think it adds anything to the article, either aesthetically or informationally, so my vote is that the article is fine without it. Any other opinions? Abaca 18:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I could live without it. Any attempt to squeeze Pynchon into such a tiny rectangle is bound to be so incomplete it verges on travesty. . . . Anville 15:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Playboy Japan

Back in February, I asked for a source on the Playboy Japan interview and its disputed authenticity. Unfortunately, nothing ever happened about that, and it slipped through the manifold cracks in the Wikipedia editing process. There has been considerable bad blood on the PYNCHON-L discussion list about this, which just recently led the statement to be toned down to the following:

An article purporting to be the transcript of an interview with Pynchon in the wake of the September 11 attacks on the U.S. appeared in the December 2001 issue of Playboy Japan. Though Melanie Jackson, the author's wife and literary agent, reportedly denied the authenticity of this interview when contacted by a third party, editors at Playboy Japan reputedly confirmed its authenticity.

Rather than fussing with all those "reportedly" and "reputedly" modifiers, I have changed this paragraph to read as follows:

An article purporting to be the transcript of an interview with Pynchon in the wake of the September 11 attacks on the U.S. appeared in the December 2001 issue of Playboy Japan. This transcript has not circulated widely in English translation.

This, at least, is true. Further modifications should be possible if better sources become clear.

Be seeing you. Anville 14:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"Thick Russian accent"

OK, this is tangential to almost everything, but I can't stop myself from wondering about this particular passage:

In his article, Siegel reveals that Pynchon had a complex about his teeth and underwent extensive and painful reconstructive surgery, was nicknamed "Tom" at Cornell and attended Mass diligently, acted as best man at Siegel's wedding, and that he later also had an affair with Siegel's wife. Siegel recalls Pynchon saying he did attend some of Vladimir Nabokov's lectures at Cornell but that he could hardly make out what Nabokov was saying because of his thick Russian accent.

Those with RealPlayer or a workable substitute can listen to Nabokov here, here or here. Just how thick do you think Nabokov's accent is? Anville 15:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Rushdie/Fatwa

'The Iranian ayatollah' is like saying 'the Italian cardinal'. It was Khomeini - if nobody objects to it being changed to 'the Ayatollah Khomeini' or 'the Iranian Supreme Guide' then I'll change it in a couple of days.

The wikilink is to Khomeini. The fatwa has been confirmed by the current Ayatollah. Abaca 00:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Publication date/lack of sources

Who, exactly, has reported that the publication date of Against the Day has been moved forward to November 21? No source is stated, and I haven't been able to verify this information anywhere. Amazon still provides December 5 as the release date, and unless a proper source for the new date can be provided, let's stick with the original date. Torerye

To the best of my knowledge, this was passed along to PYNCHON-L via Steven Moore of the William Gaddis discussion group, the same individual who originally provided the excerpt now quoted at Against the Day. The Barnes and Noble page for the book now lists 21 November, too. Anville 17:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks - that seems to be in order, then (and two weeks of excruciating waiting have just been obliterated!). Torerye 08:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Largely irrelevant notice: I just happened to look on Amazon, and they say 21 November now too. Anville 16:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"daily attendant at Catholic Mass"?

"Pynchon, during his years at Cornell, was a daily attendant at Catholic mass, much to the surprise (and dismay) of some of his compeers." I removed the above from the Biography intro. In his Playboy article, Siegel notes that Pynchon attended Mass at Cornell, and there's a reference to that further into the entry ("1970s and 1980s"). I'm not aware of another source which substantiates the claims made in this sentence, however. Abaca 22:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of some links or Link Re-organization

As I was reading through this article is has become apparent to me that this article is quite "blue" with links. I believe that in order to improve the readability some of these links should either be removed or some sentences should be re-organized in order to accomodate these links.While it is important that Wikipedia maintains its powerful permalink feature, but on this particular page the feature is overused.What are your thoughts on this proposed re-organization? Neil Kelty 19:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This page is definitely a mess -- I removed some of the more obscure artists from the influences section. After all, every author who has published a book post-Gravity's Rainbow can claim him as an influence. It is only really helpful to see more major well-known on this list. Cank 14:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Internet fanbase

I think that there should be some mention of the multiple active locations on the internet of Pynchon discussion and reference. Maybe a general mention of his fanbase should be mentioned, perhaps. Planetsconspire 00:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Overemphasis on Gravity's Rainbow?

The biography is currently divided into four subsections: early life, early career, Gravity's Rainbow, and later life. I agree that GR is significant, but we don't need to organize this person's life around that one work, right? Why not just discuss the works sequentially, each in its own subsection? Joshua R. Davis 02:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I too feel that there is not enough information on his other works, specifically V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.185.59 (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Solstice Gift

I an trying to decide which of Pynchon's novels to get for my English teacher. She is a Pynchon newbie, and I don't think she has time for Gravity's Rainbow, Against the Day, or Mason & Dixon. What do you folks recommend? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.139.41 (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't usually engage in discussions that are not of direct merit to the article in question, but here I'll make an exception. It depends for what purpose you want to give her the book. V. is underdeveloped compared to GR, but far more representative of Pynchon's works than The Crying of Lot 49. On the other hand, TCOL49 is the easiest read of the bunch and does give a flavour. I wouldn't recommend Vineland as an introduction, but that's because personally I don't like it. Why not just give GR and if she gives up then perhaps Pynchon is not for her? Martin Hinks (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Addition of spoken article

Howdy! I've recorded and uploaded the spoken version of this article. I have a question: For the Simpsons section, I added the actual dialogue from the episode. It was only after I uploaded the file that I realized I may be violating a copyright. Er...am I? I just thought it would be neat to actually have the only known recording of Pynchon's voice in the spoken version of this article.  :) If I am violating a copyright, or if I've horribly mispronounced any words or names (e.g., Elfriede Jelinek), let me know, and I'll revise the recording.

I apologize for the tinny-ness of some sections of the first part. If anyone has the know-how to fix it, have at it. I'm still learning the ropes here...any feedback at all is welcome, either here, or on my talk page. Chadley99 03:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think your including this snippet is valid under fair use—as valid as the text article's using the screenshot of The Simpsons, anyway. You might like to add a fair use rationale to the media description page, just to keep everything honest and above-the-table. Anville 14:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

One other thing. In the Simpsons clip, Pynchon pronounces his own name pin-CHON, with the emphasis on the second syllable. I'm almost positive Lisa Simpson says it the same way in "All's Fair in Oven War". Anville 13:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that as well. Before making the recording, I looked his name up in several biographical dictionaries, and all of them had the pronunciation as PINCH-un...althought Pynchon himself clearly trumps any dictionary. I have the feeling once I get the hang of this recording thing (and find a break in my studies), this'll be one I re-do someday. Chadley99 16:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I hear it clearly as primary stress on [pɪn], secondary stress on [tʃan]. Listen. Sean M. Burke 04:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No no no, listen again then sir to your own cited recording. If anything the stresses are equal, and the tone of the latter stress is absolutely "awn" not "un." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicopac (talk • contribs) 09:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Last name

How exactly are you supposed to pronounce it? 68.39.174.238 02:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

PIN-chen. Richardrj 05:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not. See the fourth paragraph of THIS entry (above).--Anchoress 06:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep. If his only aural presentation of his own name is to be taken into account, it's "Pinch-awn." But who is he to lay a stake in his own name's pronunciation. Oh, right- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicopac (talk • contribs) 09:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

External link to robotwisdom

http://www.robotwisdom.com/jorn/tpportal.html

This is a great TP resource. (See Jorn Barger) Are the links on it too out of date for use. I am surprised it is not in the external links?! --81.105.243.17 (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Relation to Tristan Taormino

Is there any reason why the article does not mention his relation to Tristan Taormino, the famous sex educator? This seems much more current, relevent, and insightful than his wife's relation to a past president. Whether or not he would personally prefer to be associated with her does not change the fact or the relevence. It should be included in the article. See New York Post article. --Bodybagger 06:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're being funny? I couldn't tell from your post. But he's not related to her because a tabloid says he is. Have you read his stuff? Methinks he wouldn't have a problem affirming it if he truly was a relative of hers. 24.177.120.179 (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

References

Why are the references in this article formatted as they are? They are essentially worthless in their current formatting, because one knows not what fact in the article the reference is meant to refer to. I do not even know how they can be improved from their current verkakta state. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Gravity's Rainbow

No need to include personal criticisms, please. Added NPOV tag; also, please change the in-text citations in that section to the standard wp template (not that such broad, sweeping statements could be backed up sufficiently with a single source, much less without explanation). Too lazy to log on/cpy+paste, but I am pepebuslo. 24.126.177.92 (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what the problem is. The section in question seems to be an accurate descriptive summary of the text. Please be more specific about your concerns. Abaca

Not sure this is what Pepebuslo was referring to but I am deleting the following sentences:

"In this way, Pynchon's text enacts a type of dramatic irony whereby neither the characters nor the various narrative voices are aware of specific historical circumstances, such as the Holocaust, which are, however, very much to the forefront of the reader's understanding of this time in history. Such an approach generates dynamic tension and moments of acute self-consciousness, as both reader and author seem drawn ever deeper into the "plot", in various senses of that term."

This is someone's personal literary interpretation and, whether a fair/widely accepted reading or not, is superfluous to a summary of Pynchon's novel that should appear in a biographical essay of the man himself. NapoleonicStudent (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries, you're entitled to your opinions about the superfluity of the sentences and the purpose of the article. But I think that you're supposed to leave the article intact rather than deleting material from it (especially seeing as the elaboration and exemplification you deleted were there before and during the time the article achieved feature article status) - as per the Wikipedia guidelines for this sort of dispute resolution process. I'd actually like to see more rather than less descriptive information about the author's work in the article. Abaca —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC).

Mortality and Care in Vienna

I found Informations about a short story called Mortality and Care in Vienna probably by Thomas Pynchon. This page [3] pretends, that Pynchon has written it, but i dont believe this. same page] says, that it has been published in a the very unknown literature journal Manuskripte, Zeitschrift für Literatur, actually registered in the austrian town Graz. Another Homepage pretends, that Mortality and Care in Vienna is still unpublished. Following this, it would have been its first publication. I do not think, that Pynchon has really written it because Graz is not known for beeing important in the austrian literature scene, so Pynchon would have had no reason for publishing it in a unknown literature Journal from this town. Does anybody know anything about this short story? And if Pynchon is its author, should it be mentioned in the article?. --Helmut Gründlinger (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's "Morality and Mercy in Vienna," published in Epoch Magazine at Cornell. The title is from The Merchant of Venice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightspore (talk • contribs) 12:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The title of Pynchon's short story is "Mortality and Mercy in Vienna" and it is a quote from Shakespeare's Measure for Measure (ACT I scene i). An unauthorized version of the story was republished as a chapbook by Aloes Books, London in the 1970s. Snomes (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

External Links

Getting a bit long. I suggest we at least remove these two:

• Prüfstand 7 Information about the movie featuring scenes from Gravity's Rainbow
• "Thomas Pynchon and the myth of invisibility": a review of Against the Day in the TLS, December 1, 2006.

since they are specific to a particular work. If so desired, each could be moved to the work in question. Rknasc (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, It's better to move them to each specific article, rather then deleting.--Sum (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Hailing"

I know its a rather small diction question, but do we really use the word "hailing" to describe where one is from in an encyclopedia article? It seems about bit colloquial to me. Mrathel (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Inherent Vice - Pynchon voice

I disagree with this revert. The info is well known and not at risk for Wikipedia:BLP. A more constructive action, and more welcoming of the precious contribution of unregistered users, would have been to just put a {{fact}} tag.Sum (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Human sexuality

The second paragraph of this article states that the work of Thomas Pynchon deals with the field of "human sexuality." I agree that history, science, and mathematics -the other areas mentioned in the same sentence- are fields. "Human sexuality," however, is not "a field." Sexology, on the other hand, IS a field. Nevertheless, sexology is NOT of major relevance within Pynchon's body of work. Sex recurs as an image, but it is merely a trope of sorts. I suggest "human sexuality" be removed from that sentence, as it clearly does not qualify as "a field" and was probably simply included there obsessed with adding hyperlinks to preexisting articles. 81.99.193.239 (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup of references needed

No, not this talk page, but the article itself. I didn't put the tag in the article, but the references should be done with <ref> tags, and not with # wikilinks. --Janke | Talk 17:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The current refs style is outdated. Recently, someone went through and changed new refs to the old style. I fail to see how that was helpful. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hippie movement

Further references and quotes are needed about the relationship between Pynchon and the hippie moviements of the 50s and 60s (additions to the article here and here).--Sum (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Lotion...?

Is this article written by fanboys only? No fact-checkers...? Come on, this is meant to be an encyclopedia. In any case, the whole "Lotion story" was fabricated, it seems, by its band members, as you can see here:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/08/pynchon-lotion.html

The liner notes appear to have been written indeed by Thomas Pynchon, but the whole "we befriended a reclusive author"-story was a fairy tale that journalists bought all too quickly. 128.86.175.152 (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

References - Why exactly are they different?

It seems rather ridiculous that 99.9% of Wikipedia has references formatted one way, but this page uses a different system. I find that it is completely unnecessary, and takes away from reading the article. Angryapathy (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Influences

The page is missing Pynchon's influences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.82.62 (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

'Epigones'?

Do we really want to consign writers influenced by TP to the derogatory status of "Epigones"? "Influence" would probably be a better (because more neutral) section title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrlead (talk • contribs) 16:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Definitely agree. Sindinero (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Throwback

A noteworthy forebear might be Thomas Ruggles Pynchon, 9th president of Connecticut’s Trinity College, Scovill Professor of Chemistry and the Natural Sciences. He was the author of Introduction to Chemical Physics, published in 1874.There is no Wikipedia article on this earlier namesake, so there is no danger of confusion.Lestrade (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Lestrade

Front-loading

Is the effusive praise of Harold Bloom really necessary in the article? The sentences

Renowned American literary critic Harold Bloom named him as

and

The noted American critic Harold Bloom has hailed the novel

waste a lot of space by front-loading adjectives that describe someone who, for all that one may love the man, really has nothing to do with the subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.53.144 (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Pynchon's name

I've reverted an edit which placed the pronunciation in the lede paragraph. I actually think it's better placed where it was. But the more important issue is that the pronunciation was changed a few weeks back purely on the basis of an on-line dictionary. I think that Pynchon's appearances in The Simpsons episodes verified the preferred pronunciation of his surname (i.e., Lisa Simpson addresses his cartoon avatar directly as "Thomas Pynch-ON"), so it probably should be changed back to what it originally was. Abaca (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

See www.themodernword.com/pynchon/TRP_simpsons.html Abaca (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

/ˈpintʃ-ɑːn/ Abaca (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I would describe it as "PINCH-on", with a fully pronounced second syllable, yet the stress remains on the first one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolbojnik (talk • contribs) 11:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hilarious

I think its hilarious that a featured article about an author who goes out of his way to avoid having his image published features an awkward and goofy pic on the main page of Wikipedia.Heptapod 00:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

When I saw this article on the front page my first thought was, "Isn't there a better picture of this guy somewhere?" Even though he is a private person, you'd think he'd try to have a picture that didn't look...well, stupid. --Vyran 11:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This picture is one of only two the author has no control over, it presumably being the property of the US Navy. The only other picture is worse. --Chips Critic 15:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Plus (+), you ungrateful folks, this is a fantastic picture. Have you read his stuff? This picture is an amazing representation of the kind of things he writes. Awwww you cute little people who judge a great writer on his grills and his grins. Awww. Cuties, go live in your holes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicopac (talk • contribs) 09:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

But where has the picture gone?! groupuscule (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

For those looking for an even earlier picture, you can look at his Junior Year yearbook at https://staging/rkn/Pynchon/None.yearbook52/index.html R k nelson (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Oops, that URL is: https://staging.airflowsciences.com/rkn/Pynchon/None.yearbook52/index.html R k nelson (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Cow Country

This page is currently semi-protected. Just so it's clear, we do not put Cow Country in his list of works unless it is actually confirmed. In fact, since this is simply the idea of one critic out there, we do not even bother mentioning "Cow Country" as some kind of Pynchon-related controversy, because of WP:UNDUE. Choor monster (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)