Talk:Thomas Pynchon/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Jules Siegel writes to Wikipedia

I moved this part of the article, edited in by Jules Siegel to this talk page:

Siegel has denied that the article constitutes some form of "revenge" on his part.
Siegel comments, "Some corrections: I never said that the dental work was to improve his appearance. The issue of "revenge" is ridiculous and more than a little insulting. In the first place, there was no reason for it, as I got the girl. Chrissie never ran off with him. That was just a stupid title that Playboy thought would appeal to the masses. They had a brief (although very intense) affair, not uncommon at the time (or any time, human nature being what it is). She and I got over it very quickly and we had a child together and lived together for another six years. We broke up for reasons that had nothing to do with him. More importantly, as I said in the article (which is really very affectionate, and not at all hostile), Chrissie and I were firm believers in one of the most hallowed ethical concepts of our time: people are not property. My previous comments about this were removed by someone. If these are now removed I will make a complaint to the moderators and ask that the article be locked. Is that clear?"

I noticed you are a contributor here now Mr. Siegel, thanks for joining in, we dig your stay. Please create an account for yourself too so we know when you're editing us. I took out the fact you pointed out as incorrect, that's the way we commonly do it here. The non-issue regarding your article in Playboy is better off here at the talk page, since Wikipedia strives to contain only valid and verified facts, not discussions of said facts as such, that is what the talk page is indeed for.

Thanks for popping in and hope you will keep editing us, please add in more things to this and other articles where you have superior information on Tom. Nixdorf 20:50, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

"Chrissie and I were firm believers in one of the most hallowed ethical concepts of our time: people are not property." Hey, Jules, I just wanted to thank your generation for finally repudiating slavery!
Heh, thankfully it was repudiated long before his generation. But he didn't mean slavery per se, as is clear from the context. :) Zafiroblue05 03:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I recognize that quite well, but to me it's a little tiring how people of "their" generation seem to have a self-righteous attitude about the world. I find it snobbish and rife with opportunity for sarcasm and satire.
Hmmm, I know what you mean. But then again, I find that a lot of people are snobbish and self-righteous. The "greatest generation," for example... *shrug* Zafiroblue05 21:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Other stuff

While "seemingly-absurd but thoroughly erudite" might be something you'd see on the back of a paperback novel, it is hardly a classy way to describe any novelist. One does not say of Arnold Schoenberg that he wrote "seemingly unlistenable but actually quite cleverly composed musical works." Nor should you summarize the work of this particular author with the phrase: Thomas Pynchon is a seemingly-absurd-but-thoroughly-erudite American novelist. American novelist will do just fine, I think.

Absurd in this context means containing absurdist situations; it is not a description of the quality of his work. Mintguy 11:16, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Regardless, absurd viz "absurdist situations" is not a description that I would apply to Pynchon's work as a whole, and even if some of his work is absurdist (which it may or may not be; I wouldn't go to that much trouble) it is pure junk to have said "SEEMINGLY absurd." I mean, it is or it isn't. And it sure ain't Absurdist fiction.

It is certainly possible for something to appear to a certain way without actually being so, that's why the word "seem" is in the language. I purposely chose that phrasing because someone who picks it up in the bookstore, or hears about it from friends who might have started on one, will mostly like have the erroneous impression that his works are absurdist fiction. The lead paragraph needs to be a succinct expression of what is interesting about the subject; just "American novelist" doesn't say what differentiates Pynchon from a thousand other novelists with articles here. It wouldn't hurt to have a longer characterization of his corpus; one of my books sums it up in about two sentences, which is not too long for the lead, but I don't have time to try my hand at it today. Stan 17:13, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

are you sure that Pynchon's next work is about Sofya Kovalevskaya? There was just a novel about her called -Beyond the Limit: The Dream of Sofya Kovalevskaya- by Joan Spicci.

it would be very cool if he wrote about her, i just havn't found any varification about it.

There is what is apperently a picture of Pynchon on the German version of this page. It would be nice if someone translated the source and linked it to the english version.

Wasn't there an article in Esquire years ago by a Cornell grad entitled something like "Where is Thomas Pynchon and Why Has He Run away with My Wife?" Or maybe "Who is Thomas etc." I was living overseas at the time and although I had greatly liked his first two books I hadn't realized that he had become such a notorious recluse. Maybe someone could dig up info about this article to put in the WP article. Evidently he really had vanished with this guy's wife.... Hayford Peirce 04:12, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't Pynchon (most likely) live in New York instead of Northern California?

Pynchon is secretive and avoids media attention. But rumors on his social life are consistently upbeat: he gets around, travels, sees people, and all that. Howard Hughes became a recluse.--192.35.35.34 17:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Protection

The page is temporarily protected due to the emerging edit war. If anyone is unhappy with the protection, they are urged to contact me privately. Danny 16:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

See User talk:200.95.39.125. User:200.95.39.125 may actually be Jules Siegel (the IP resolves to a Mexican ISP, and Siegel apparently lives in Mexico, so it's possible). -℘yrop (talk) 18:07, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

--I don't see any signs of an edit war in the history. What is the dispute about? --Jleon 19:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Neither do i, but see User talk:Danny#Thomas_Pynchon_protection and User talk:Pyrop#Thomas_Pynchon. Danny has told me that Jimbo and he have confirmed that User:200.95.39.125 is an interested party, and that the protection "was based on a request from interested parties." We can't really do anything except wait... -℘yrop (talk) 21:16, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
If it ever gets unprotected, someone should throw in the following quotation, which I found in Arthur Salm's "A screaming comes across the sky (but not a photo)", San Diego Union-Tribune 8 February 2004.
The man simply chooses not to be a public figure, an attitude that resonates on a frequency so out of phase with that of the prevailing culture that if Pynchon and Paris Hilton were ever to meet—the circumstances, I admit, are beyond imagining—the resulting matter/antimatter explosion would vaporize everything from here to Tau Ceti IV.
Wuv, Anville 8 July 2005 20:03 (UTC).

I have unprotected the article since it has been protected for over a month. Gamaliel 8 July 2005 20:14 (UTC)

Someone on 200.95.39.125 definately tried very desperately to remove any Jules Siegel references off the page, they have all been restored now, if that person is Siegel himself or even Thomas Pynchon I don't know. Nixdorf 21:17, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the removed paragraphs were the following:

Relatively little is known about Thomas Pynchon as a private person, however in the March 1977 issue of Playboy Magazine a Cornell University friend, writer Jules Siegel published a lengthy article entitled Who is Thomas Pynchon, and why did he take off with my wife? about his relation to Pynchon, including such tidbits as the fact that Pynchon had a complex for his teeth, was nicknamed Tom at Cornell, and that he had an affair with Siegel's wife.

Nixdorf 21:22, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

The MacArthur Foundation <http://www.macfdn.org/programs/fel/complete_list_3.htm> gives 1988 as the date of TP's fellow award, not 1989, as stated in article.

Paris Hilton?

I am extremely hard pressed to believe Paris Hilton would recognize the name Thomas Pynchon. More likely the writers of the O.C. (who do have some degree of wit) have, and thought they were being clever.

Where does the rumor about Pynchon moving back to California come from? I haven't been able to verify that such a rumor exists (or is accessible to me, anyway).

I agree. The part about Paris Hilton being an active participant in cultural repartee should be removed sans proof. 129.105.35.120 22:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Vineland

I note that the detailed description of Vineland was removed. OK, I can see the reasoning behind that, and it makes enough sense. I pulled the text out of the revision history and pasted it into the Vineland article, where it may be more appropriate. It actually dropped in rather nicely.

Best wishes, Anville 15:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Yearbook Picture

I'd like to propose to remove the silly and outdated picture of Pynchon from the page, regardless if there is another image. Regardless if that is an actual picture of him, it is certainly not what he looks like today. An article on Pynchon would be more accurate, fitting, and respectfull without it. It's bad enough there's a bit about the poor man having a dental-complex. Besides, that picture is literally all over the net for those who wish to see it, and adds nothing to an article on Pynchon's obscurity or writing abilities. 129.105.35.120 22:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

What does a fifty year old yearbook picture tell us about a living author? I would remove this myself, but I see it's been deleted before and restored. I hope someone has a reason other than "it was my idea" for keeping this in. Orthografer 16:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. Does three a consensus make? I'm taking it out. If you want it back, please post here so we can discuss it rather than just reverting back and forth. Zafiroblue05 05:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The photo is all over the net for those who wish to see it, in the same way that much of the info in this article is all over the net for those who wish to see it. If the photo doesn't need to be here, why does the article? Your argument also assumes that someone who knows nothing of Pynchon except for a name or a link from another article will come here and automatically understand why there is no photo of a living author. So, if the photo goes, there needs to be an explanation posted in an obvious place for Pynchon-newbies. Of course, it would just be easier to post a 50 year old photo and explain in the caption why the article uses a 50 year-old photo than to none at all (if only because new Wikipedians will come in, see an article w/o a photo & add one in order to be helpful). Finally, a more appropriate photo for the article than the one recently removed would be here. proteus71 14:00, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
        • I think there's a certain notability to Thomas Pynchon that warrants the article's presence in an encyclopedia (clearly - but this is WHY this article exists despite its content being easily gathered from a Google search). But I would say that there's NOT anything notable about that picture - in fact, Pynchon's opposition to the publishing of his photos is what is notable - and what better to represent that than by not having a picture at all (and discussing why not). Putting up the yearbook picture (or any other decades-old picture) is, to some extent, making notable what is inherently NOT. After all, that yearbook picture (or the Navy picture, etc.) would never be looked at if Pynchon was pro-photo. Zafiroblue05 05:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I think the photo should be left in unless you have a suitable replacement. It is directly relevant to the article, and the lack of a more recent photo is a biographical detail addressed by the article. Shoehorn 02:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The photo should be left out; the lack of a photo (recent or not) is suitably explained by the article. There's nothing inherently informative about a photo attached to an article about a novelist (as opposed to a photo in an article about an actor, or a politician--someone whose public recognizability is part of their fame). It's not a good photo, it's so ancient that it's not an accurate photo, and simple common decency to a man who doesn't like having his photo published should take priority over merely adding to the article every possible item we can. --User:Jod
    • Along those same lines, I doubt the man would appreciate having trivial bits of his life put into an encyclopedia article in the first place. Common decency? I think you need to disance yourself from the article a little. Is the photo relevant? Yes. Are we suggesting someone track the author down and take his photo by force? No. Shoehorn 02:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Shoehorn, why do you keep saying "the photo is relevant" without ever giving an adaquate explanation of why exactly the photo is relevant??? Do you have any valid reasons? You say the people wanting to remove the photograph need to distance themselves and that you think someone has suggested that from a photo something might try to track tracked down (where does this come from???), both of which are absurd extrapolations from what has been written here. Do you refuse to believe that anyone might have neutral, objective reasons for thinking the page shouldn't have a photo? Why don't you try proving that the photo *IS* relevant to the article, because I don't think your simple "Yeah, it's relevant, you're just lacking logic/being too subjective/confused/etc" is changing anybody's mind. And by the way, you have NO way of knowing what the man's wishes are concerning an Encyclopedia entry. He obviously wants his *name* in the public eye, and there's no reason to assume anything about an encyclopedia article because he has an aversion to the media. But that is irrelevant to an encyclopedia article, much like a photograph from when the man was like 18-20.
    • If we're going to have an article based on what Pynchon wants, then we should extend the same courtesy to all other living authors. Rowling, Oates, Marquez, King, all of them should be contacted to see if they approve of their entires. Entries for deceased authors will be cared for by their fans. Criticism, unwanted photos, embarrassing personal data can all be shunted aside to other web sites. Wikipedia can become just like the 14th edition Britannica, where the editors worked very diligently to see than no one was offended. Of course, the end result of their efforts was that the 14th edition was Britannica's biggest failure. Conclusion: to some extent we are obliged to ignore what Pynchon wants. This article is not for him, it's for the rest of the English-speaking world. We do our part by not using a recent photo or encouraging others to take photos, or publishing his home address, etc. But we are not obliged to indulge his every quirk. I'm still in favor of the photo I suggested a few days ago. proteus71 16:48, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm strongly opposed to having any photo at all. Like I said, it adds nothing to the article. The purpose of an article about an author should be to discuss their literary works, lifestyles, and influences. As his reclusiveness is well-explained, any reader would emerge understanding why there is no photograph. Putting a 50-year old photo on the page seems to overstress the point by screaming "look, we're serious, no photos of the man publicly exist!" How about we invoke universality? If all we had of anyone was a photo from when they were 20ish when their fame was garnered in middle-age, would we post the photographs, or merely admit than none exist? I would think the latter. Furthermore, I feel the point of a good encyclopedia article is to capture the "essence" of the object, and in this case, the "essence" of Thomas Pynchon demands that no picture be placed. This isn't to indulge Pynchon's whims, but rather to convey his writtings and character in a more appropriate fashion. May I suggest instead that we substitute the picture with a crude notebook drawing of a post-horn and the drawing of a rocket in flight, or something similar? Sonofabird 20:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
        • What a confused argument. Pynchon's whims and the "essense" of his work are the same thing. Certainly Pynchon wouldn't want his photo on a book jacket. An encyclopedia entry is more comprehensive. Shoehorn 20:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
          • But how exactly does putting an outdated, misleading (because of the age difference and perhaps even the teeth thing) picture contribute to the comprehensiveness of the article? What, after all, is the point of having a picture in an encyclopedia article? Either to a) illustrate a point that can not be clearly and concisely described in words or b) to give the reader a sense of the subject, no? Including the yearbook picture does NOT give the reader a sense of Pynchon; excluding the picture and explaining why in the lede (as currently done) DOES. And, IMO, including the photo muddies the "picture" (so to speak) rather than illustrating it.Zafiroblue05 07:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
          • "Pynchon's whims and the "essense" of his work are the same thing." No they aren't! Who's "confused?" Answer this question: "who is Thomas Pychon?" We don't write what Pynchon personally wants (what Sonofabird I believe called "his whims"), or else we'd just ask the man to do it himself. We write about the "essence" of the work that he is known for and his personality (if available) and his place in literature. Answering "who/what is Thomas Pynchon and why is he/she/it important?" does not involve putting a 40+ year old photograph from before he wrote anything worth publishing or had any noteriety, especially given Zafiro's points (s/he seems to make more sense than anyone on here, especially those of you who's argument is basically "we have it, therefore it should be there). But, I am laughing at the fact that you implied that Pynchon's wishes/personality are identical to his literary work.
            • Any photo helps to establish context. A yearbook photo from the 50's provides context of the era in which he was born, hairstyles, clothing. If he has bad teeth then this might be a clue to his choice of subject matter. In a larger context, if I am looking for photos from the 50's, or photos of famous people when they were young, or that kind of thing then providing the photo would be helpful. I don't think you really care about the overall project here, I think you're just a Pynchon fanboy who is foolishly trying to protect the honor of his sole hero. Shoehorn 20:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
              • Any photo helps establish context? Really? Would a picture of, say, Hemingway's dead body, head blasted away by shotgun, be appropriate in an encyclopedia article? Would a screenshot of Paris Hilton on the OC establish the context in the "Media aversion and mystique" section? (Actually, I'm thinking maybe any reference to Paris, except the quote, should be removed.) And on and on. Just because you *can* depict something doesn't mean you *should*. As I stated above, an image should only (IMO) appear in an encyclopedia if it either a) give readers a better sense of the subject or b) illustrates (in both senses of the word) a point that cannot be better depicted in words. As that photo of Pynchon gives readers a *false* sense of Thomas Pynchon and *muddies* rather than clarifies the issue of Pynchon's aversion to public "fame" (or whatever you want to call it). Zafiroblue05 05:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
                • What is this issue you keep talking about? It is well known that Pynchon chooses not to be a public figure. The only thing that could muddy this "issue" would be a daytime television interview frenzy by the man. Shoehorn 22:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
                  • Uh, really? Let's say we wrote in the first sentence that Pynchon was a media hog. That would muddy the issue HERE, no? (The issue, of course, is Pynchon's media aversion.) That is, it would muddy the issue in the encyclopedia. It wouldn't be muddied to person knowledgeable about the issue; but it would to someone just reading the article. To be more precise, it (a false statement about Pynchon and the media, or the yearbook picture) would muddy the encyclopedia's discussion of the issue, not the issue itself. Since this is, after all, an encyclopedia, I thought that would be clear. Is that semantic (not to mention pedantic) enough for you? Zafiroblue05 20:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
                    • Well that is an interesting argument, and by interesting I mean hyperbolic. You equate posting an old yearbook photo with presenting false information in the article. So, for James Joyce, should you choose a photo with an eyepatch, or without? Posting an image without the patch would muddy the issue that Joyce at certain times wore an eyepatch, and that would by your logic be the same as writing that Joyce was an Eskimo who led a failed rebellion against the king of Sweden. Meanwhile we now have a cartoon rendition of Pynchon on the page, which is far more asinine than the yearbook photo. Shoehorn 22:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
                      • Lol, asinine is a very apt word to describe Thomas Pynchon - or at least one element of him and his work. Back on topic, Pynchon's "image" - in multiple senses - has very much to do with pictures and photographs of him, while James Joyce has little to nothing to do with eyepatches and Eskimos. Zafiroblue05 02:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
                        • This is not an article about Pynchon's "image" (in quotes). If you want to write a love letter about his reclusive "image", go create a fan site. You did not answer my question. Shoehorn 05:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
              • I wrote the reply to your idiotic "confused" statement. I don't like Pynchon's writing that much, to be honest, hardly from a fanboy, and I don't think he's a hero at all. I actually find him to be something of a charlatan, but that's neither here nor there. I stumbled across the page rather randomly to be honest, and the photo discussion caught my eye. My care for the overall project is exactly why I don't think there should be a Pynchon picture from the 50s. Establishing context? Are you serious? On those grounds, we could insert all sorts of crazy things. Because he has bad teeth that might dictate his subject choice? Not only might he have plastic surgery since then, or dramatically changed appearence, or all sorts of other things, looking at a picture of a person does nothing to help you interpret their work or literary value (which is why Pynchon has a page in the first place.) Do you know anything about literature at all? Baby photos, photos of parents, photos from college, these are all superfluous to the task at hand when writing an encyclopedia article about Pynchon. What context can it give us beyond "he lived in the fifties?" Let the "fanboys" go find it if they want.
                • Fanboy or detractor, you don't appear to be objective in spite of your excuses. I know a good deal about literature. Or was that a rhetorical (and pointless) question? Shoehorn 22:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
                  • No, I was completely serious. And yes, I am being objective. I don't think it's objectively proper to have that picture be the sole representation of Thomas Pynchon at the top of the page. My excuses? I asked you for a logical, valid reason to keep the page the way it was and all you continued to do was spout ad hominem attacks.
  • These are both hyperbolical exaggerations of my point. What I said was that, given that the photo is not very good nor relevant, there is no reason not to follow the dictates of courtesy: that his reasonable preference be respected.

I added a screenshot of Pynchon as he agreed to appear on "The Simpsons". This is the only visual image of Pynchon authorized by the man himself in several decades. Therefore, this image should answer the concerns of those who believe that a yearbook photo of him, being decades out of date, is inappropriate. proteus71 20:27, 30 Nov 2005.

  • Agreed. Then someone put up some other images, rearranging... What the hell, this issue isn't worth it. Not a fanboy enough to care. :p Zafiroblue05 20:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Your post-horn is awesome! With the yearbook photo in a better spot and the Simpsons screenshot later on, I say we have the whole photo issue resolved. proteus71 22:11, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Till a better foto appears what is there now is a good compromise. The simpsons pic is very good and amusing . Im sure that TP would have a good laugh.

      • The is much more accurate now, especially including the Simpson's image. I think readers will now have the sense of who Thomas Pynchon is instead of maybe thinking he is best known as a teenager from the 50s. 129.105.104.223 22:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I know this discussion is pretty old...but I tend to disagree with the majority on this point. I found it pretty cool that there is any picture of him, no matter how old it is. Makes for an interesting case of how reclusive he is...the fact that, to date, there has only been on picture of him.
          • That picture is still there, but now is more appropriately under the "Early life" section. Before, it served as the main pic up at the top of the page, and I think that was most of the original contention, was that it gave a misleading impression. 129.105.104.223 01:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Journey into the Mind of P...

Nothing on the movie? I havent seen it but someone must have. If its garbage, thats ok, say its garbage, but you cant just ignore it.

  • Unless someone's seen it, no one can really write about it, right? Zafiroblue05 05:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

From a Source at Holt

The new UNTITLED Thomas Pynchon novel will 'tentatively' be published Spring 2007. Nov. Rating 8/10 Acc. Rating 5/10

  • Oh, come on. Zafiroblue05 22:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What's Nov. Ratings and Acc. Rating? proteus71 21:06, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Probably something he made up to make it seem more credible. Or cryptic, really. Zafiroblue05 20:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the below entry but on the Holt thing, I happen to know that not only has there been no publication date set for any 'new' TP novel, but no one at Holt would even ask TP when its due. So there.

  • Ohhhkay, the same IP address wrote that Holt will publish a Pynchon in 2007 [1] AND that Holt will not publish a Pynchon in 2007 [2]. I don't get it, but rest assured any fanboys out there that you wouldn't hear about a future Pynchon book from a Wikipedia talk page. And the release date wouldn't be set a year and half in advance - it doesn't take that long to edit, print, promote, and publish a book. :) Zafiroblue05 02:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Mortality and Mercy

I dont know how legal or ethical this is but you can now read Mortality and Mercy in Vienna for free at Google Scholar. Great page.

muted horn?

is there a story behind the muted horn pic? It seems like vandalism to me, but am not sure... --sohmc 01:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It appears to have been a unilateral effort by User:Proteus71 and User:Zafiroblue05. There is an ongoing discussion about the use of the yearbook photo in the top position, see above. As to the muted horn image, it definitely obscures the biographical character of the page. Shoehorn 09:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Shoehorn aparently doesn't know what "unilateral" means. There has been an ongoing picture debate, and so far the actual yearbook picture being under "Early Life" and the muted post-horn (or similar pic) being at the top is the best consensus. It does much less to "obscure" the biographical character of the person in question than a photo from the 50s. Sometimes, yes, a symbol or a drawing is more relevant to defining a person than a photograph. Sonofabird 20:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Give me one example. Also, consensus has not been reached on this issue. Shoehorn 05:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
        • From the way I read it, there are 3-5 to like it the way it is now and then there's 1 against. Examples where a drawing or symbol would be better than a photo even if a photo existed: Jesus, Picaso, van Gogh, Pynchon, Frank Lloyd Wright...they exist...
          • In none of these suggested cases has Wikipedia chosen to use a symbol or drawing (as opposed to portraiture). Picasso died in 1973, yet there is a photo of young Picasso at the top of the page. A black and white photo! By your logic, it should be a cubist representation. Just as a dull symbol from one of Pynchon's less notable novels should be used here? Shoehorn 03:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I haven't been involved in the creation of any of those pages (nor do their choices have any merit in the argument here, for that matter). I merely mentioned that if *I* were doing an encyclopedia, I would use other images to represent those individuals than their actual photo. This is probably a difference of opinion over what an encyclopedia is and should be. Personally, I can't for the life of me understand the obsession previous encyclopedians have with portraits of people, and as stated, there are many individuals that are much better represented by something else.63.250.65.4 08:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I sort of dig that horn, anyone who has read Pynchon's arguably most accessible novel The Crying of Lot 49 knows this symbol (which was invented by Pynchon), and it really suits Pynchon well to have the horn on this page. Nixdorf 13:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the images are decent as they stand right now, but I'd prefer a picture of the Trystero horn photographed in some appropriate setting, maybe with nice letters below that look like dripping blood, reading "W.A.S.T.E." or "D.E.A.T.H." Far be it for respectable Wikipedia editors to advocate graffiti; still, there's a time and place for all things. . . . (wink) Anville 12:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Hey - you want to create that image? Hint, hint... lol Now what if we could get an image like that - and it was real... ;) Zafiroblue05 18:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

An administrator needs to revert the article to the previous version. proteus71 17:24, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Any editor can revert the article. Gamaliel 20:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yearbook vs Post Horn

No offence taken, but I see no consensus above.

Surely I don't need to demonstrate that every other biographical article on Wikipedia that has a picture of the subject leads with that picture?

The objections on the grounds that Pynchon doesn't look like that anymore are mendacious and risible. We don't represent dead white males (or females) with pictures of skulls or rotting corpses. We use the best (in this case: only) picture we have at our disposal.

I've linked this page to RfC, so let's see what other people think. In the meantime, I plan to reinstate the status quo. Pynchon doesn't look like a post horn, and articles are not written from the POV of their subjects.

chocolateboy 00:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is not a picture gallery of famous people; it is an encylopedia. The point of an article about a person is not to show what they physically look like - so we don't show dead people as rotting corpses. An article should explain what a person is about, not show what he or she "is"; a decades-old picture does not accurately present Thomas Pynchon. The insinuation that moving the picture down to the Early Life section is "in accordance with Pynchon's wishes" implies that Pynchon actually came on Wikipedia and asked for the change (which is not all that crazy in light of the fact that another person mentioned in the article - less notable - appears to have edited it as well), which is absolutely not true; Pynchon is averse to photos being taken of him today, but he never tried to burn all the copies of his old yearbook and just might approve the old photo being placed up top. You'd have to ask him. And the comment that objections to your point of view are "mendacious and risible" (translation: dishonest and ridiculous) does not seem in very good faith. Zafiroblue05 02:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • "Surely I don't need to demonstrate that every other biographical article on Wikipedia that has a picture of the subject leads with that picture?" So? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.250.65.4 (talk • contribs)

"The objections on the grounds that Pynchon doesn't look like that anymore are mendacious and risible." You're quite risible yourself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.250.65.4 (talk • contribs)

"...articles are not written from the POV of their subjects." Neither is this one. The question we should ask ourselves when determining which image goes at teh top of the page is "which image best represents who Thomas Pynchon is/was?" The answer to that question by all but a few people who have come here is NOT the yearbook picture. We have agreed that an alternate pic, with a yearbook pic below under 'early life' is the best way to represent Thomas Pynchon visually. Why you've chosen to pop up out of no where and post inflamatory statements, accusations, and whatnot, assuming we're all daft, is beyond me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.250.65.4 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"We have agreed"? And yet you've (apparently) never contributed to Wikipedia before today. Could you clarify what username or IP address you have previously used when contributing to this article or discussion page? That would help to dispel the impression of "[ popping ] up out of no where [sic] ", which appears, from your account, to be a bad thing. Thanks. chocolateboy 21:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
We being people who have visited this page and kept up with the ongoing argument over the past month. I'm Sonofabird in addition to about 15 other IPs (I honestly don't know the other ones except the current one, and I think I have contributed from this one before...hmmmm...) Furthermore, does that really have anything to do with the validity of an argument??? And didn't you just pop up out of nowhere and start slandering people on this page??? 63.250.65.136 21:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we're all familiar with your "argument", and with your "rhetoric". Let's see what other Wikipedians have to say. chocolateboy 02:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Look, I don't mean to get mad, but there's no reason to try to belittle people you disagree with. There is no need to put quotation marks around the word argument, nor to use the word rhetoric at all. Zafiroblue05 02:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we're all familiar with your "argument", and with your "rhetoric". Let's see what other Wikipedians have to say. chocolateboy 02:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  • raises eyebrows Yes, let's - of course! (I can't say I'm a paragon of civility or anything, but jeez louise.) Zafiroblue05 03:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Mendacity: "there's NOT anything notable about that picture" vs:

"Pynchon's opposition to the publishing of his photos is what is notable"
"Pynchon is averse to photos being taken of him today".
"After all, that yearbook picture (or the Navy picture, etc.) would never be looked at if Pynchon was pro-photo..."
"The issue, of course, is Pynchon's media aversion."

Rhetoric:

"I find that a lot of people are snobbish and self-righteous."

&c.

chocolateboy 03:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Blink. Wha... Lol. Zafiroblue05 06:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Hey, he convinced me! LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.250.65.4 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • All right then, if I have to ;) *chuckle*. The "rhetoric" quote is taken out of context, a comment on someone else declaring Pynchon's generation snobbish and self-righteous - I was merely saying that many generations are snobbish and self-righteous - not the 60s generation more than any other one. The four "mendacity" quotes serve no purpose - I agree with what is written, and if a point of view other than chocolateboy's is "mendacious" (i.e., lying and dishonest), then chocolateboy has a very closed and limited mind. Zafiroblue05 08:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Good to see the "LOL" (and the anonymous "LOL" - even better) are alive and well. And what better place to air them?

"Mendacity" refers to the fact that the discussion above discounts the yearbook photo on the grounds that it is somehow not notable or representative. As the quotes show, this is not the real reason. The picture has been demoted because Pynchon personally disapproves. I agree with him, but, fortunately, Wikipedia policy has nothing whatsoever to do with my, your or Pynchon's personal predilections.

Moreover, there's no consensus in the discussion above. Console yourself with the word "disingenuous" if you find that less "LOL"-worthy.

Incidentally, translating English words into English ("lying and dishonest") and playing to the gallery ("a point of view other than chocolateboy's", "chocolateboy has a very closed and limited mind") are not very effective ways to refute the charge of "rhetoric".

chocolateboy 21:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I "translated English words into English" because I didn't know what they meant, and there's a decent chance that a percentage of the random people reading this page wouldn't either. Next thing you'll want is to compare SAT verbal scores. "Lol" is alive and well because this is an online conversation - which is utterly deficient without the use of it and other common internet conventions. ("Lol" is more commonly understood, I would bet, than "risible," and certainly more commonly understood than "mendacious." The point of communication, after all, is communication.) As for playing to the gallery - well, considering the number of people who've responded to the request for comment, the "gallery" isn't very big.
If you really want my opinion on Thomas Pynchon, I think he's a reckless and self-important writer who mixes occasional literary brilliance with thousands of pages of worthless and boring trivialities; if I knew him in person, I probably wouldn't like him. I certainly don't care what he thinks - but as an occasionaly encyclopedist, I see no reason to mislead readers by present an inaccurate "image" - so to speak - of him. As you can see by reading above, I originally proposed not having the picture in the article in the first place, but a compromise was made. Zafiroblue05 05:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Wow, Chocolateboy, you really are an arrogant piece of work, aren't you? First of all, the "annonymous" comments are all from Sonofabird. The wikipedia log-in doesn't exactly always work on my computers and I switch computers during my work so it's easier to just not log in more often than not. For the record, I put "LOL" because your usage of "risible" and "mendacious" actually did make me laugh out loud, as my first thought was "oh my God, this poor soul feels like he has to impress us with his vocabulary!" Chocalle boy must have a bite-sized Snicker's or something. I know what both words mean quite well, and there's no grounds for using either of them in describing the objections to the yearbook pic by either zafiroblue or myself. Hack, you think you know rhetoric? You either are disingenuous yourself or you don't even know what the primary objection to the yearbook pic is! No one has brought up Pychon's personal wishes (and the application of said wishes in any context was because of a misunderstanding in the first place) in quite a long time. Sonofabird 05:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm Sonofabird in addition to about 15 other IPs

Thanks for confirming that there's no consensus. Presumably this is someone who shares your "interest" in Pynchon and your subnet, rather than you referring to yourself in the third person?

I know what both words mean quite well

Er... well done?

didn't you just pop up out of nowhere

No [3] [4], but could you clarify where this "popping up out of nowhere" business is deprecated in Wikipedia policy, and how that squares with, say, Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles?

No one has brought up Pychon's personal wishes (and the application of said wishes in any context was because of a misunderstanding in the first place) in quite a long time.
  1. "simple common decency to a man who doesn't like having his photo published should take priority over merely adding to the article every possible item we can" [5]
  2. "What I said was that, given that the photo is not very good nor relevant, there is no reason not to follow the dictates of courtesy: that his reasonable preference be respected." [6]
  3. "The simpsons pic is very good and amusing . Im sure that TP would have a good laugh." [7]

chocolateboy 23:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think either one is appropriate for the lead image. The yearbook pic is too grainy and silly, and the posthorn is too amateurish looking. Perhaps we could compromise and choose a pic everyone likes, or even one everyone hates. Gamaliel 06:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I actually agree with you in that the posthorn looks amatuerish (although I do think it is MUCH better than a misleading 50-year old picture). Unless a better image is found or created, I would vote for the Simpson's image to go up top. Sonofabird 05:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Are we gonna have a debate about whether the picture looks better alongside the intro or alongside the TOC as well? [8] Why waste space?

chocolateboy 07:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • If you want it there, then go ahead. You own this page, after all. :) I just thought it was the general trend to put the top picture at the top. Just clicking from link to link, you could go on forever: [9][10][11] [12][13][14] [15][16][17] etc. Zafiroblue05 07:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Only three of those examples have an introductory paragraph, and only two of them have an image small enough to tuck in beside the TOC. But, yeah, I guess that's how people used to do things back in the day before User:Mrsteviec solved the layout problem in Shoreditch (history) :-)

chocolateboy 08:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Chocolateboy - what do you do all day? You went through all those back-posts just to figure out that I refered to myself in the third person once, which I don't even remember doing? OOOOOhhhh, I guess you got me, Sherlock (btw, By my count I'm only 3 of the random IPs on this page, meaning there's still a heavy majority who disliked the yearbook pic). Like I said, no one had brought up Pynchon's wishes in a long time, and I'm still right - there were other dominant considerations in not having a 1957 photo at the top of the page (for example, that it distorts who Thomas Pynchon is or was). However, in your rush to criticize and proclaim yourself king, you just skipped right over them. This is precisely what I hate about Wikipedia and why this will likely be my last post or contribution to the system. The whole point of a wiki-based system is to have a user-run and managed encyclopedia, different from Brittanica or Encarta, where any expert can come along and add to it. There is an encouraging element of freedom in that, but then all of a sudden the community develops people like you who become holy sovereigns, and you create policy pages and your own system etiquette and whatnot. And then when someone like myself comes to a page like this who wants to actually question what an encyclopedia is and should be, someone like you shows up and says its an absolute law that there has to be a picture at the top of the bloody page. Five or six users agree that the page was better one way, one doesn't, and then you show up, join the one, and poof the picture changes because your mighty sword swung. So much for a month-and-a-half of back and forth debate, indeed, you can march right in, drudge up an old argument, and trump whatever the current consensus is (as I'm guessing it wouldn't have mattered had it been 5-1, 10-1, or 50-1...). No, no need for whatever reasoned discourse was going on when you entered, just change immediately. That's what I truly love about internet communities...before they can ever truly become communities you get a bunch of people on the first wave who act like they're kings of the castle because they can't cut it as leaders anywhere else in the real world, so when the rest of us who are actually trying to make a difference catch wind of something and want to join in, there's no room to, because people like you show up and say that your rules trump my rules and that's just the way it is even though that runs counter to the whole spirit of wikipedia people like you like to emit so freely. It's bloody hypocrisy. This could be something great, but people with minds like yours, Cholotateboy, ruin it. I don't give two craps about Pynchon, and I don't really like his writing, but I had serious concerns about the nature of an encyclopedia which allows a picture of a teenage boy from the 50s to represent and author who made his name in the 60s and 70s, especially when said picture likely does not look like said author. Yet, without addressing that issue, you've declared yourself in charge and tried vainly to discredit myself, Zafiroblue, and the few others who had legitimate concerns (or even Proteus, who originally thought the yearbook pic was better, but then agreed to a compromise). Well, after three or four months of really trying to get into helping make this a better encyclopedia, I'm done messing with this stupid, ridiculoulsy flawed system. Enjoy your empty castle with your nerdy internet friends, King Dousche. This kind of caddy, insulting crap and behavior, which runs counter to the etiqutte and standards of the real-world, quite frankly isn't worth it anymore. Sonofabird 21:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Five or six users agree that the page was better one way, one doesn't

Just to dispel the Floridan miscount peddled by you and Zafiroblue05 [18]: opponents of that post horn as a lead picture include:

  1. Chocolateboy
  2. Gamaliel
  3. Sohmc [19]
  4. Shoehorn
  5. Gsgeorge [20]
  6. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) [21]

- as well as editors of the article on various other transwikis, and, of course, editors of every other biographical article on Wikipedia. Thanks for confirming your sockpuppetry, by the way.

chocolateboy 22:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)