Roger, Jessica and all things Queer.

[Andrew Dinn]

Tom Stanton writes:

> > Andrew Dinn wrote:
> > > Tom Stanton writes:> 
> > > I think it was Diana York who pointed out Pynchon would have written
> > > within the prejudices of his time...it should be
> > > no surprise that Pynchon's homosexual characters are alternately bitchy
> > > and/or perverse, even when one of them is the Lamb himself.

> > Diana *pointed out* no such thing. She suggested (or maybe even presumed)
> > that this might be the case.

> I think I said "I think" so I thought I was covering myself in
> sufficient vagueness. Apologies to D.York if I invoked you incorrectly.

It doesn't matter whether you thunk it or not. Who says `Pynchon
*would have* written within the prejudices of his time'? Well if
anyone or anything says so it can only be argued with reference to
what was actually written. So where's the evidence?

> > If `pointing out' were such a straightforward
> > thing to do we could all give up reading and thinking and merely
> > pander to our current prejudices and taboos.

> I'm on vacation & don't have The Book at hand so I cannot cite gospel
> & verse. Also, I thought I was allowed to express a broader opinion.
> Don't tell me I should have expected "The Spanish Inquisition" here!

It's not the Spanish Inquisition. You are assuming that Pynchon's book
builds in prejudices current at the time of writing. Why assume? Why
not merely investigate the matter? It's there on the page. What do you
gain by making this assumption? Other than 3 PC brownie points, that
is (damn, I've gone and mentioned *that acronym* again - roll on the
PC wars).

> > Frankly, I find the phrase `it should be no surprise' singularly
> > inappropriate in a discussion of `Gravity's Rainbow'.

> Haven't checked the p-list style guide lately so I guess I stand
> corrected....

Sounds more like spineless lying down corrected to me. Still that's
your call.

> > So, let's stop judging Pynchon by the times he
> > was brought up in and start judging Gravity's Rainbow by the words on
> > the page (possibly qualified, interpreted, coloured by the time in
> > which they were penned, but that's secondary, not primary).

> My observation that Pynchon would have "written within the
> prejudices of his time" does not trivialize his achievement.

Don't think I suggested it did. I did suggest that such an observation
ought to be founded on what is in the book, not on presumptions about
what Pynchon *must* be like given his time and place of birth.

> Having
> lived through the period when Pynchon wrote GR, I think the times
> are very significant to the text (IMHO).

Doubtless so. I can think of all sorts of examples in the book which
justify this statement. But when it comes to justifying the claim that
he is homophobic I don't see things as being altogether clear cut. If
you do then please enlighten us with the relevant chapter and verse
and why IYHO it justifies such a view. Cite as much historical (or
current) context as you like to explain why what is in the book is
clearly homophobic. But please don't just tell me one more time that
Pynchon *must* be homophobic because he was writing in the sixties.

> GR is an
> anti-establishment, anti-war novel, and very politically charged in
> its message. Pynchon's work survived the changes in fashion &
> opinion because it has more depth than most of the pop claptrap
> produced during the same period. But IMHO the words on the page
> don't exist outside of their historical context. Yes, you can read
> GR and understand the message without having lived through the 60s &
> 70s in LA, the words carry the day, but if you understand America
> during this period, Nixon and Hoover and VonBraun in particular, the
> book becomes even more significant.

Glad to see you recognise that the words on the page are of some
relevance to the argument. But look Pynchon is an oddball. As you say
his book has outlasted much other 60s stuff because it has such
depth. If Pynchon can write his way out of one type of 60s shallowness
he can write his way out of another. Why do you presume that he is not
able to see beyond the sexism of his times when he can see beyond
other naive preconceptions?

I don't take a stand one way or another on his homophobia or his
sexism - how can you in a book where the flashes of real humanity are
sprinkled sparsely in amongst the actions of otherwise cardboard
characters. These flashes reveal great warmth, humanity and generosity
towards all individuals and matters of sexuality are surely
transcended by such qualities. But most of the time the characters
engage in fetishistic routines which are rooted in abuse and, although
maybe they reflect a certain mutual cold comfort, usually serve to
reinforce the loneliness and paranoia which distances the characters
from each other. To interpret gay caricatures as revealing something
when the book deliberately uses all sorts of caricatures both to shock
us and to distance us from the characters is a highly doubtful
interpretative tactic.

> In my opinion...

Ditto, of course. But oh to be involved in the exchange.


Andrew Dinn
-----------
And though Earthliness forget you,
To the stilled Earth say:  I flow.
To the rushing water speak:  I am.