How Do We Know Thomas Pynchon Exists?

 A PYNCHON AUTHORSHIP CONTROVERSY

That's the problem with a reclusive novelist like Thomas Pynchon. He might be non-existent.

The writings may well be the product of an 1963-era IBM System 360 mainframe computer, or a Univac, supplemented today, for the most recent novel, by AI. How would we know to the contrary? 

Or more likely, produced by a committee at CIA Headquarters in Langley.

For "Thomas Pynchon," unlike for all other public figures, there've been no questions, no interviews, no author photos. For sixty years! No accountability. Insular elite literary people, our official intelligentsia-- the most gullible individuals on earth-- are accepting of everything. Change the history of American literature to wipe out or marginalize naturalists and populists? Sure, they'll buy it. A pretend author? Simplicity itself in comparison.

There's long been a Shakespeare Authorship Controversy, with contrarians questioning the evidence and insisting someone other than the man from Stratford wrote the poems and plays.

There are far more grounds for a Pynchon Authorship Controversy.

THE CHIEF CULPRIT

This book review appearing in the New York Times on April 21, 1963, put unknown writer Thomas Pynchon on the cultural map. The review was written by upper-class literary mandarin George Plimpton, known for his gags and practical jokes. A recent essay by Andrew Szanton calls Plimpton a "world-class mischief maker"-- but there was much more to old George than first met the eye. Plimpton's influential literary journal The Paris Review was founded with CIA monies and intended to alter the direction of American culture away from its populist roots. The publication wanted "non-drum beaters and non-axe-grinders," or so proclaimed the first issue. This, in 1953 at the peak of the Cold War, when Ivy League liberal intellectuals sought a middle path between populist radicalism and John Birch Society-style reaction. For those in the upper levels of American society, scions of privilege, much was at stake.

CONTEXT

The real hoax, the actual gag, was wiping out the possibility of truly political, radical, "from the people" writing, of a kind which could connect to the vast American public, and promoting instead a jokey substitute, whose difficult books, published under the name of a WASP blueblood, would appeal to the literary cognoscenti in New England and New York, addressing politics in a satirical fashion, unthreatening, with distinctive style. The ultimate in 1960's hip. Hilarity for one and all. The masses excluded of course.

THE FIRST NOVEL

The first "Thomas Pynchon" novel, curiously enough, V, is about the mystery of identity. The search for an identity. A review of the novel on May 15, 1963 in Time magazine, in the aftermath of Plimpton's, asked: "Who, finally, is V? . . . Who indeed?"

NOTE

I'm sure there's an actual legal Thomas Pynchon somewhere, paid a yearly stipend for the use of his name, though he's clearly not up to playing the role of great writer in public. Oh well. Never easy to pull off.

Meanwhile George Plimpton, wherever he is, enjoys eternal amusement.

About Instapoetry

Pictured: Poet Rupi Kaur

(I penned this to the same college student, this time in response to questions about the Instapoetry movement. Apparently he uses excerpts-- with attribution-- in a college newspaper.)

Change in any art is necessary to keep it fresh and alive. What's happening with the success of Rupi Kaur and others like her is a return to extreme simplicity in form, and to simple, basic emotion. To language's roots, in a sense. The poems are fresh and readable, and so are drawing readers to online poetry. The short, clear style is made for the digital age-- at least, as you imply, for these still-early days of the digital age. So, yes, Rupi Kaur is the face of poetry now. 

Can it last? I don't think so, unless it evolves. It's too simple, and will quickly become monotonous. What looks new and fresh today won't look so fresh a few years from now when it's been done over and over. And over, with little variety. Its utter simplicity leaves little room for variety. It's the kind of poetry (I won't call it verse; it's not verse) which anyone can write. Which means everyone will write it, and the world will be flooded with Rupi Kaur knockoffs until we're drowning in them and people cry out, "Enough!" Are Rupi Kaur and her colleagues talented enough to evolve their art? Or are they one-hit wonders who'll be writing and reciting the same tunes ten or twenty years from now? They have a penchant for promotion. That's obvious. Is that enough?

Their flaw is they use none of the effective tricks of poetry developed over centuries. Things like cadence, wordplay, the occasional (or not so occasional) rhyme. What some call euphony. Rupi Kaur stresses that her work draws on trauma and abuse. So did Sylvia Plath's. Plath's poems were extremely self-centered-- but they also used every tool in the poet's toolbox, which is why they've lasted-- why they're as strong now to read or listen to as when they were composed. 

The poetic art has fled from craft-- from the instinctive use of what some call craft-- since Plath's death, and much of the running away is from simple laziness. Academic poetry has put people to sleep for decades-- in part because it threw away rhyme and meter, elements of poetry which existed for a reason. Which existed because they helped the listener connect easily to the work-- aiding the mind in flowing into a work's rhythms and imagery. The best poetry expresses a joy in language itself-- which is why Shakespeare has lasted. It should be fun and exciting to recite. The work of the Instapoets is too simple to be fun and exciting to recite.

Still, what they're doing might be necessary to bring new people back to the art. The true innovators will be those who move strongly beyond Rupi Kaur and her peers-- who can build on the simplicity but give the new audiences the excitement of a more complex and passionate art. That's the trick. That's the task. That's the accomplishment to go after-- not to dismiss Instapoetry, but to surpass it. To top it at its own game by subtly and gently bringing back those long-scorned and forgotten tools of cadence and rhyme. Mixing them into the simple words and short works. Keeping the poems short but making them more powerful, more compressed. Creating poems which will simply engage the online reader-- but knock those readers out of their chairs with their power. That's what I'd like to see. If it can be imagined, it can be accomplished.

Karl Wenclas

Editor

New Pop Lit

www.newpoplit.com 

The Best New Writers?

Who is finding and showcasing the best new writers?

The NEW POP LIT project is betting that we have the ability to discover great new writers which the New York conglomerates and literati overlook. In our first print issue we showcase many of them—Jessie Lynn McMains, Thomas Mundt, Alex Bernstein, James Alexander, Wred Fright, Kathleen Crane, Dan Nielsen, Terry Sanville and Robin Dunn among them.

Can you the reader and/or literary person afford to not investigate what new pop writing is about?

Stay up on coming changes! We’re just getting started. Get ahead of the curve by purchasing NEW POP LIT #1 now!

Formatting a Book

I’m happy to announce that NEW POP LIT #1 (which might be called Issue One Revamped) is back from the printer. It looks good. More than good. It looks great.

I have found throughout the course of the text a few infuriating trivial mistakes which somehow I missed. Trivial for sure in the larger context of what we’re doing, because the book is a very good product, containing terrific writing. BUT, the failure of achieving 100%—which a book needs to be—plunges me back into the maddening experience of formatting the thing.

Putting together a book online, especially a collection of diverse contributions, is not like designing zines, of which I’ve done many. The way I produced zines, offline, every step was analog. Meaning, when I finished a page, it was finished. Unchanging.

A digital file by contrast is always changing. Make a change in one part of the file, and suddenly a score of changes have taken place throughout. Like the butterfly effect—a butterfly flapping its wings can have effects on the other end of the universe. In this case, the other end of the file. An added word or spaced line can mean two extra pages.

I worked on the book at night, after getting home from a grinding evening “day job.” I soon found I was doing a mind meld with the file. The file became part of my brain. The gaps in the file became echoed by gaps in my tired brain.

I was putting a dozen or more files together, each one formatted differently, along with inserted artwork. Each time I made a change in the file as a whole, it caused a proliferation of changes within each separate file. Even when I thought I’d brought them tediously up to speed. For instance, when I was 90% done, I decided the margins needed to be justified. A good move, but it threw off everything. Was the file also  “register true”? Oops! Another change to be made, causing other changes. Don’t ask me about titles, headers, and footers. I’m still absorbing my learning in those areas.

When you don’t take these steps in the proper order—I was operating by trial and error—then after each step you should proofread every single part of the file. Stories, poems, art, contents page, title page: everything. This becomes mentally exhausting. You begin skipping and scanning. The contents are of high quality. At times, the submissions are amazing. But that doesn’t mean you can reread them word by word night after night with ease! (The re-readings made me realize how amazing the pieces are. I have total appreciation for the talents of the writers and artists we were able to find.)

I took the obstacles and challenges as a kind of punishment given me from the mind of the universe for the extreme hubris of my past life. Maybe as a warning not to be arrogant and self-satisfied this time around. I’m thankful that I have another “this time” in which to push my ideas, and maybe, this time, to get them right.

The upside in the experience is that eventually you reach a point when you’re able to be a little creative. It’s why I’ve decided to keep going. I truly believe I can create books, in look, style, and writing, that will be a step beyond anything produced by the mainstream. If I can visualize it, I can create it—the creation dependent of course on the ability to find talents like those we’re showcasing in this our first title—from cover artist Alyssa Klash (our cover a fully realized achievement) to “Pop Picasso” insert artist Dan Nielsen, to unbelievable writers like Jessie Lynn McMains, Thomas Mundt, Brittany Terwilliger, Alex Bernstein, Robin Dunn et.al., with exclamation marks; to interview subject author/publisher Delphine Pontvieux; and to the very special Kathleen Crane, without whose support and encouragement this project would be floundering.

Now comes the task of promoting and selling the produced thing, which should be easy!