The Real V?

[Andrew Dinn]

Bonnie Surfus writes:

> 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.  

Sounds like some kind of `White Goddess' analysis is being suggested
here. You should take a look at Henry Adam's `Mont St. Michel and
Chartres' - Pynchon obviously has - and consider who wins, the
Archangel or the Virgin. You might also note in passing how the A4
(that original examplar of applied control theory, a technology which
relies upon continually rectifying instabilities, damping oscillations
and random variations) eventually reaches Brennschluss, and,
succumbing to the influence of Gravity, falls as the `pure ballistic',
uncontrolled, random V2, tracing its own parabolic rainbow to
Annihilation. Think of the As and Vs as opposing Vectors in some
invisible field of influence (another Henry Adams motif adopted by
Pynchon).

Of course, everyone knows that rainbows are really circular, not so
much `what goes up must come down' as `what goes around comes around'
(it is only an excess of gravity which brings you down - Angelo's
gravity certainly led to a fall on Vincentio's return). So, maybe you
could also read in some sort of Wheel of life motif, you know `Nature
does not know annihilation (not V for Vernichtung) merely
Transformation (but V for Verwandlung)', or perhaps even a cycle of
the seasons (look out for that PrimaVera as a Green Return). Maybe
even, if one can attain a suitably mindless state, keep cool enough
yet still care, one can survive life's endless Yoyoing, riding the
cycles as a Free Wheeler.

N.B. the A and V which lie coupled in Nature (AVature) are also
opposed in W(heeler) and swirled together in Zoyd (or is that AVoid,
read it how you will). Perhaps one might also read Frenesi as Friend
(of) A(tman and) Z(oyd but not Brock Vond?). After all, `V.' has only
the enigmatic V, `V2.' has the A4 and the V2. Discounting Lot 49 as a
mistake - as Pynchon does - renders Vineland(America's other half) V3,
so there would have to be both an A principle (principal), a V and an
opposition of the two i.e. theoretically a W but actually, in the
presence of any instability, a spiralling Z.

> 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 the 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 and dreams of ownership.

Indeed, the story has to spin again for the ordering principle to be
restated. The need to restencilize arises because nature does not have
to keep obeying any principles. Regularities are not guaranteed. So
any `control theory' (and what is modern science but the best
organized effort so far to control and order nature) has to be updated
continually to rectify anomalies when new phenomena are thrown at
it. `The problem was always control' i.e. ordering an ever-resurgent
disorder.

And, though you identify these opposing forces `male' and `female'
don't impose them on actual males and females. There are non-gendered
manifestations of these opposites forces of order and disorder e.g. as
presented by Saure and Gustav and there are also same-gendered pairs
who represent these opposites, Enzian/Tchitcherine,
Brock/Weed. Pynchon's lack of character(ization) lies in his desire to
use characters as symbols for one or other of these principles. In
particular his women almost always get the entropy ticket (various
Vs/Katje/Leni). If you want characters who are neither one nor the
other check out Zoyd and the no longer Virgin Prairie who emerges from
her sleeping bag after Brock's visitation.

I don't think that Pynchon is arguing that on a personal level the
`male' force is necessarily stronger or weaker than the `female'
force, that one will necessarily dominate. `V.' is disassembled and
scattered despite the attempt to reduce her to mere mechanism. The
00001 is salvaged from the mud by the Schwarzkommando and
resurrected. These are parables which on a personal level indicate
that adherence to one principle will not prevail. The resolution is to
recognise and employ both forces as Zoyd does. The result is not a
stalemate, a cancellation of opposing vectors, but a revolution, a
dynamic equilibrium. Rather than relying on (or even searching out)
absolute guarantees like Pointsman, or succumbing to the schizophrenia
which ensues from disbelief in any order (which afflicts Slothrop) the
requirement is to use what order one can profit by but be willing to
change one's principles with one's circumstances. Sufficient unto the
day are the regularities thereof.


Andrew Dinn
-----------
there is no map / and a compass / wouldn't help at all
(Copyright Andrew Dinn 1994)