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.

A Review of the 1973 film "The Sting"

 I posted a review of the movie at IMDB, here.

Another Recent Comment of Mine at Lit Mag News

 This one was posted July 5th, in response to an article titled "How Do We Spot Scammy Lit Mags and Presses?"

Hi. For what it's worth, Paris Review does receive money from venture capital. Per this source-- https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/paris-review-foundation,134081729/-- Paris Review has assets over $11,000,000. Recent donors include the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, which was founded in 2006 with donations by multi-billionaires Mark Zuckerberg and Reed Hastings, among others. (Let's not forget also that the same publication notoriously was founded in 1953 with monies from the CIA, a fact which came out decades later.) What would a Mark Zuckerberg gain from indirectly funding a literary magazine? Like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and a couple others, he's worth $200 billion-with-a-b. Money to burn. These guys are out to control every aspect of society-- see Peter Thiel, patron of J.D. Vance, and HIS involvement with the cultural world c/o Dimes Square and other trendy happenings. Yeah, there are a lot of scamsters in every aspect of America at the moment. But some are small-time grifters, while others are very, very big players.

Why Curtis Sliwa Can't Win: A Rant

 LIVING IN CLASS-BASED AMERICA

I SHOULDN'T CARE about the New York City mayoral contest, but observing it from a distance has set off my alarm bells about why America never fulfilled its potential and why the American Dream today is a fraud. 

What do I know of New York? I never lived there-- tried to once-- but when I was promoting the Underground Literary Alliance in the 2000's I went up there from Philadelphia via the Chinatown Bus nearly every week. Before and after 9-11. I promoted a number of events (crashed more) there-- one at historic CBGB's-- and attended countless readings, open mics, parties, you name it. I knew a lot of writers who lived in NYC, from varied backgrounds, and I caught at least part of the New York vibe.

What triggered this rant is noise from the usual suspects about the various other candidates, with Curtis Sliwa usually dismissed as "kind of a loon." As any ambitious person not from the elite class, or inside an approved institution, is viewed.

Liberal-left intellectuals, of whom there are many in New York City, are backing Zohran Mamdani, whose parents are themselves intellectuals: his father a Columbia University professor; his mother an award-winning filmmaker. Likely they see themselves, or elite versions of themselves, in him. Curtis Sliwa is an actual working class guy, but leftist intellectuals, who claim to speak for the working class, don't trust him to know his city and its people. Who has traveled New York City's streets more than Curtis Sliwa? There was even once a mob hit put on him! He should be, and for many is, a folk hero.

But no, Sliwa doesn't fit the standard pre-packaged ideological solution which has never worked any time, any place. They'll keep trying to pound the square peg into a round hole because it's what they've been institutionally taught: the most conditioned persons on the planet from the time their yuppie parents dropped them into their first pre-pre-pre-school at age two.

Differences between the candidates are huge. Only one is not from a conforming institution, but from the streets, the grass roots.

A Recent Comment By Me at Lit Mag News

(A response posted July 1, 2025, as a comment to a recent article.)

Re Simian Smith and AI. Like the lit mag mentioned, at New Pop Lit we're firmly against AI, but we try to spell it out: "No AI!! Generated, structured, edited or designed." There are reasons not to use the technology in any way (including the huge amounts of water and electricity consumed in the training of LLM's, and from their use). Another reason: the push for AI by the largest companies on the planet, run by the world's richest individuals-- obscenely wealthy individuals (see the Jeff Bezos wedding)-- is an enormous gamble/money grab. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been invested in the technology, on the prospect that it will be used by everybody. Once everyone's using it, they'll proceed to monetize it. RIGHT NOW they're not making profits off it. Continuing investment in AI (and AI stocks) by venture capitalists is fueled by one thing: use by individuals, including writers. Chatbot use is strictly monitored, including by investment analysts. Since the damage done to humanity, including to writers and artists, will be substantial, there can be only one stance toward the technology. One mantra: DON'T USE AI!! When you do, in any way, you're enabling the entire enterprise and the forthcoming consequences. Just saying.

Recently Published in Frighty #2!

 (The blogger finally gets around to announcing on his blog his latest credit, publication in the newest release from one of the most exciting human-centered happenings on today's literary scene.)

Tired of AI slop?! Of the overregulated robotic by-the-rules mindset which comes with it?

One solution is Wred Fright's new Frighty zine. The kind of off-the-wall from-the-people writing that won't be done by robots.

The issue includes a short rant by myself.

Read about the second issue here.

Humanity is back!

Reading Lists

 IN RESPONSE to reading lists appearing in some corners of the literary world-- invariably containing the names of currently approved authors-- I offered my own "Literary Unorthodoxy" list.

In response to my list, New Pop Lit Assistant Editor Kathleen M. Crane then came up with her own, titled "Another Reading List."

(She offered twelve names. Mine only had ten.)