Stencil's mother

[Paul Mackin]

On Thu, 28 Dec 1995, Tim Ware wrote:

> 
> It's somewhat tricky ascertaining whether or not V. is H. Stencil's 
> mother. His father Sidney cops to being seduced by V. Wren in 1899. Sen 
> in 1899. Younger Stencil was born in 1901. Long gestation. My own opinion 
> is that, reading the story of V. as a parody of the Virgin myth, perhaps 
> we're talking some sort of immaculate conception here. 
> 
> If V. is a parody/inversion of the Virgin Mary, with God "in a wideawake hat 
> [fighting] skirmishes with an aboriginal Satan out at the antipodes of the 
> firmament, in the name and for the safekeeping of any Victoria" (p.73), 
> and not forgetting those five crucified British soldiers, one could 
> suppose that V. was Herbert's mother and, following this analogy, 
> that he had been "conceived without sin" (as the Miraculous Medal says). 
> Thus Sidney's thought: "His father, ha." (p.489)  Herbert seems to dismiss 
> the notion that he is some sort of "self-appointed" prophet (p.53). Of 
> course, he also _seems_ to dismiss the idea that V. is his mother ("The 
> question is ridiculous" p.54).
> 
> Now what about that circle Sidney considers completing, a circle which 
> includes V., Fausto Sr. and himself? (p.489) Hmmmm.
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> Tim W  
> 


With Henry Adams poping up so early in the genesis of Stencil, one 
instinctively thinks of a search for the Virgin as a possible antidote to 
the horrors of the 20th Century. 

However, by bringing in the "Immaculate Conception", you are shifting 
emphasis _away_ from Stencil's origins and toward the character and nature
of V itself. V becomes an entity that in some sense was preserved free
from Orginal Sin by devine grace--as in the Roman Catholic dogma concerning
the manner of the conception of the Virgin Mary. (Mary's conception, that is,
not Jesus's and the so called Virgin Birth.)

But in what sense is V immune from from Original Sin?  Well, St Augustine
seemed to associate Original Sin with the fact that we die, are not
immortal. Non-platonists have trouble with this idea, and Pynchon might
also. But perhaps it's worth considering anyway.

My latest reading of V. was not recent, so I am walking on even thiner
ice than usual. I do have the faint impression that there is the
suggestion more or less throughout of an attempt to escape death though 
prosthesis, the addition of inanimate parts. 

Don't know if any of this helps, Tim, but it's a try.
	
				P.