First Queerness, Now Binaries, Then DEATH?

[matthew.percy at utoronto.ca]

i wrote:
> 
> It's interesting that Pynchon's dismantling of binarie systems of thought
> seem to always favor one half of the binary (the half favoring a 
> "subjective/probabilistic" side of truth) at the expense of the other.
> (i.e. it's clear that Pynchon definitely supports Mexico at the expense
> of Pointsman; Crutchfield and Westwardman above Clive and Marcus...)

Paul Writes:
> 
> The Mexico/Pointsman example would be a powerful one. If P is choosing
> continuous over discrete (or boolian) he is striking a blow against not just THIS binary but binaries in general.
> 
> Which leads to the following question: Did P, upon rereading _V._ at
> some point, vow that  from that day forward he would tone down on the binary stuff. That word "inanimate" pops up just a few times too many. _GR_
> would raise the stakes. Of couse the Life/Death theme is never lost
> entirely. And obviously the preceding is a big fat oversimplification but
> it does occur to me.
> 
> 				P.
Yeah, I completely agree with you here(ro) on Life/Death.  It's a binary 
that is never lost, although it radically changes from _v._ to _GR_.  I'm
thinking about that quasi-ironic statement " Our mission is to promote death"
in Section 4 of _GR_... it would definitely seem that death is "doubled" 
within _GR_ in the sense that death is both the emptiness of Blicero and 
a possibility of redemption (Orpheus).  Not to mention that Pynchon seems 
to be trying to restore a validity to death, trying to give it a (moral) 
meaning again in an age of spectacle where "the inanimate has replaced 
the flesh" (V.).  
-m att