![]() | This page 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. |
I moved this part of the article, edited in by Jules Siegel to this talk page:
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)
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.
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)
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)
--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)
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:
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.
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 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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
The new UNTITLED Thomas Pynchon novel will 'tentatively' be published Spring 2007. Nov. Rating 8/10 Acc. Rating 5/10
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.
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.
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)
An administrator needs to revert the article to the previous version. proteus71 17:24, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
Mendacity: "there's NOT anything notable about that picture" vs:
Rhetoric:
&c.
chocolateboy 03:06, 26 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)
---
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?
Er... well done?
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?
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)
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)
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)
---
Just to dispel the Floridan miscount peddled by you and Zafiroblue05 [18]: opponents of that post horn as a lead picture include:
- 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)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Thomas Pynchon/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
already classed as featured article |
Last edited at 16:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
I moved this part of the article, edited in by Jules Siegel to this talk page:
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)
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.
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)
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)
--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)
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:
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.
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 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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
The new UNTITLED Thomas Pynchon novel will 'tentatively' be published Spring 2007. Nov. Rating 8/10 Acc. Rating 5/10
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.
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.
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)
An administrator needs to revert the article to the previous version. proteus71 17:24, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
Mendacity: "there's NOT anything notable about that picture" vs:
Rhetoric:
&c.
chocolateboy 03:06, 26 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)
---
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?
Er... well done?
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?
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)
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)
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)
---
Just to dispel the Floridan miscount peddled by you and Zafiroblue05 [18]: opponents of that post horn as a lead picture include:
- 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)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Thomas Pynchon/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
already classed as featured article |
Last edited at 16:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)