Fwd: Re: Safe Sex is No Fun

[Paul Mackin]

Susan's comparison between the sex decadence/perversity in V. with
that of GR certainly reinforces my own feelings about P's growing skill 
in the course of his writing career in the depiction of sex.  (naturally 
to be expected, of course, but to be savored nevertheless)

Strangely, I felt the S&M in V. (seen by Susan as kinda archaic and I
think I see that too) was a high point in _that_ book. When you compare
it with the cutesy boy/girl stuff of the Whole Sick Crew. The downside
of course--it wasn't voluntary and it killed people, way out there in Africa.
(and in Paris too)

The linking of normal sex with "Them" in GR is a stroke of Pynchoneon
genius I hadn't properly appreciated. (It's high time I reread the book.)
Kind of ties in with the "dirty talk" found on TV sitcoms. You sense there
is a definite line beyond with they won't go. The line is moving all the
time, but it still demarcates what is normal and OK from what is beyond the
pale.

People have different gag levels and for different things. For me the down- 
the-toilet scene didn't hit that hard. (Brought back distant memories of 
diaper changing somehow.) In fact nothing in GR got me reeling like that
stuff that went on out in the Veld.

About homosexuality. I remember one place in GR it seemed to
be presented somewhat sympathetically, though at the same time
in association with "Them".  Some of the higher ups were sitting
around comparing the comradery of the WW I trenches with the present
corrupt state of affairs. 

Pynchon can tie you in knots.

				P.

On Sat, 23 Mar 1996, Susan M Danewitz wrote:

> In _V._ the alignment between "bad" or inanimate characters and "perverse"
> sex is fairly straightforward.  When a character brought in a fetish 
> object, or went for a little S&M, almost inevitably the result was corrupt
> and destructive.  Foppl's house is left in disgust, and a judgement is
> somewhat called on all the S&M there.
> 
> When i was looking closely at _V._ I was also trying to understand the 
> change in modern mentality toward "perverse" sex.  Pynchon certainly 
> uses scatology and pain as shock techniques, and what i was noticing was
> that his attitude was kinda archaic.  S&M is linked to the eventual killing
> of the Bondel in _V._.  S&M at this point in his writing is not at all 
> complex, just someone wanting to give pain and another acquiescing.  this 
> rather flies in the face of the growing group of S&M advocates, who easily 
> point to long, loving relationships between couples who participate in S&M.
> im certainly not an expert, but the focus, in books and etc, seems to be
> on the heady interaction that comes from the intimacy of dealing with power
> and pain in the sex relationship.  
> 
> Pudding shows a more complex take on the flagellation complex, which i
> certainly feel extends to the coprophagy.  
> 
> "bound by nothing but his need for pain, for something real, something pure.
> They have taken him so far from his simple nerves.  They have stuffed paper
> illusions and military euphemisms between him and this truth, this rare
> decency, this moment at her scrupulous feet 
> .. . .
> she was here all the time, sure in her ownership of his failing body, his
> true body: undisguised by uniform, uncluttered by drugs to keep from him
> her communiques of vertigo, nausea and pain.  . . . Above all, pain.  The
> clearest poetry, the endearment of greatest worth . . ."   (234-235)
> 
> Pudding links Them and normal sex--only through this massive brutalizing
> encounter does he feel "something real, something pure."  in GR, if you
> are closer to stable, you have rowdy, but not as shocking, sex.  If youve
> been ravaged by the world like Pudding or Greta you echo that in sex, in 
> scenes which i guess really disturb some readers.  In the Blicero/
> Katje stuff i did find the sex to be disturbing, but that was because
> it wasnt voluntary.
> 
> i found the piece of the turd in the nostril from the trip down the toilet 
> a LOT more disturbing.  man, did i have trouble shaking that image... EW!
> 
> oh yeh--sometime we ought to admit that pynchon's got annoying alignment
> between homosexuality and decadence/perversity.  this read-through of GR
> i really noticed it.  only in the scene when Katje and Pirate talk about
> loving all of Humanity did i find a place where homosexual conduct wasnt
> immediately associated with lisping sub-humans.  yeesh.
> 
> heh...im not used to CRITIQUE-ing pynchon.  reely, tho, i still adore him...

> susan
> 
>