The Real V?

[Bonnie Surfus (ENG)]

You say:
Yes, V. is throughout the novel, but always filtered in some way through
Stencil.  For example, Stencil meets Mondaugen in Chap. 8 and we get
"Mondaugen's Story" in Chap. 9 but as Eigenvalue observes, " . . .
when Stencil retold it, the yarn had undergone considerable change: had
become, as Eigenvalue put it, Stencilized."

Even in the Confessions of Fausto Maijstral, it is not clear if a) Fausto
was sane or hallucinating, b) if the Bad Priest is really V.  See Chap.
16 and Stencil's interview with Fausto, where the latter casts doubt on
everything he wrote and Stencil suspects that it's all just coincidence.

The question then is what it means to say it's coincidence.  This reversal
between a certain and deadly meaning and uncertain anarchy haunts American
literature.  The whale in MOBY DIC, for example, could mean a lot of things
--or it could just be a whale.
 
First of all; yes, V. is throughout the novel, BUT FILTERED THROUGH 
STENCIL.  No kidding.  That is how any representation of female power 
proceeds.  The Church suppresses the info, just as do many other 
institutional structures or disciplines--like anthro and arch.  that 
bury, ironically, info on the Goddess, respectively and figuratively, V.  
So, that she is "Stencilized" is really the issue and the central issue 
of the novel.  for me, anyway.  

Also, notice this interesting thought:
You note how:  
Eigenvalue observes, " . . .
when Stencil retold it, the yarn had undergone considerable change: had
become, as Eigenvalue put it, Stencilized."      
David Ruelle, a chaotician, in his book _Chaotic Evolution and Strange 
ATtractors_, explains how _"the theory of RANDOM PRODUCTS has been 
developed in particular by Furstenberg (1963), and, recently, thanks to 
contributions of teh Oseledec theorem, has found some interesting 
applications.  One of them is in the THEORY OF LOCALISATION" (my 
emphasis)_ (Ruelle 48).  Explaining characteristic exponents of 
localisation theory, Ruelle says that the problem hinges upon the ability 
to "characterize the properties of the EIGENFUNCTIONS of a 
one-dimensional Schrodinger equation in a random potential . . . (Ruelle 
49).  AGain, just observations, but the Schoenmaker character may have 
been influenced?  The notion of one-dimensionality an that particular 
scoundrel seems a likely association;  yet the notion of random 
potential--his particular fondness for the possibilites (his aesthetics) 
as random underscores his not-so-well-hidden contempt for Esther's 
"hump".  ABove--that should be 'and," not "yet".  Oh, the execution of 
these ideas is not here, I'm afraid.  Sorry, it's a list.  Do what you 
like with eigenvalue.  I could be way off but maybe not.  The timing 
seems right.
Also, the first set of comments, about spinning a new yarn each time, is 
commensurate with Pynchon's obvious awareness of the changing nature of 
our conceptions of order, particuarly narrative order.  Each time she is 
Stencilized in a "new" way.  This is notable because I believe that 
Pynchon is suggesting that certain manipulations of inital conditions 
(historical record from early civilizations concerning cultural/religious 
practicies that don't necessarily favor male hegemony) have altered the 
ultimate picture--we read OVERWHELMINGLY of a male God and of a male 
reich and of a male diplomacy, etc. etc.  And underneath these various 
facades is the truth--of teh Goddess of power, a goddess whose life-givin 
and regenerative strength are paramount to the people of Malta (in 
particular) and also, everywhere (Profane's dilemma).  In various 
iterations, we see this power--even in the oil on canvas image of 
Boticelli's Venus, who is not free from male projections of sexual 
dominance ande dreams of ownership.
But then, I'm rewriting my paper here for you.  I will try to set 
limits.  But, I must say that I'm enjoying this tremendously.

Bonnie