Talk:Thomas Pynchon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Thomas Pynchon is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 7, 2006.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.
Peer review This Langlit article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Due to their length, the older discussions on this page have been archived. If further archivals are necessary, please see how to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 17.32 7 April 2006

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [[1]] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Mortality and Care in Vienna

I found Informations about a short story called Mortality and Care in Vienna probably by Thomas Pynchon. This page [2] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)