Queering Pynchon

[TERRY CAESAR]

     I wonder if anybody wants to consider queering Pynchon. All apologies, of
course, to those who might shriek, "Oh, no!" either because the very question
is either too stupid or too fadish.

     If it's too stupid, there might be some merit in making the case nonethe-
less. The fact of homosexuality is everywhere in Pynchon, after all. In some
places more than others, true, but it seems to be fascinating to consider the
difference between GR and Vineland as at least in part a difference in the
valuation of homosexuality--its motives, its costs, its political consequences.

     And if queering Pynchon seems fadish--for those of us who happen to be
academics anyway, and so are supposed to care about such things--I still think
we might as well accept the fact that desire and its social construction, or
gender as a question of performance rather than practice are postulates that
look to be around for awhile. We may as well try to read Pynchon in terms of
such things. Somebody is going to, and then write Pynchon on or off according-
ly.

     But maybe I shouldn't sound defensive, I dunno. I always like the people
who post, or appear to, in all innocence. I don't mean to be innocent. But I
do mean to ask a question I don't have any praticlar stake in, beyond the
curiosity of seeing where it might go on the list.