queerness in Thomas Pynchon

[Tresy Kilbourne]

>
>Depictions of exploitative and emotionally void love affairs which happen to
>be between two people of the same sex does not constitute homophobia; at
>least not to my understanding.  
Neither does it to mine. But there really isn't any symnpathetic 
depiction of homosexual relationships in GR, is there? The closest I can 
come to finding one is in that last paragraph of the penultimate chapter, 
where the "manly love" of the First World War is contrasted with the 
paper-pushing "faggotry" of the Second. But he's not talking about 
gayness as conventionally understood here. On the hetero side we have 
plenty of exploitive and emotionally void sex as well, but it's not 
exclusively so, e.g., Roger and Jessica. That leads me to the reluctant 
conclusion that in GR, homsexuality is depicted as deviant at best, 
life-denying at worst. 
>And comparisons with Lawrence and Eliot,
>both of whom were outright bigots, doesn't throw any light on what Pynchon
>seems to be doing.
It would be hard to, since we know little about TRP except through his 
writing. Lincoln freed the slaves, but he also abhored the idea of 
miscegenation, as did virtually all but the most radical abolitionists. 
Is he, then, an "outright bigot?" My point was that Lawrence and Eliot  
were products of their time, which was saturated with antisemitism, much 
of it taken for granted and therefore unconscious (look at Mencken, whose 
antisemitic remarks have been the target of much recent criticism, 
despite his hatred of Nazism), so it's shouldn't be surprising that GR, 
despite its audacity, is a product of its. That doesn't diminish its 
greatness.

_________
Tresy Kilbourne, Seattle WA
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be 
one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of 
blind-folded fear." --Thomas Jefferson, Letter, 10 Aug. 1787