Prejudices and Caricatures (was Roger, Jessica and all things Queer)

[davemarc]

At 05:14 PM 11/25/96 +0000, Andrew wrote:
>
>[snip] 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?

For starters, P. wrote most of GR using 20th Century English.  That's the
evidence.  Where's the evidence that he somehow managed to liberate his
prose from the prejudices or world view embodied in that language?  It's a
truism that writers write within the prejudices of their times as reflected
by their language.  

[snip]

>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.
>
Given that P. cannot help but write "within his times" it's also possible to
recognize that, as a (creative) individual, he could still take just about
about any attitude about particular subjects (i.e. sexuality), characters,
u.s.w.  

I'm fascinated by his practice of caricaturing most if not all of his
characters.  One issue I've been thinking about recently has to do with
interpreting, understanding, and reacting to caricatures.  I often think of
Bosch when I think of GR's Europe.  To me, there are elements of anarchy,
moralizing, sympathy, anger, comedy, and sentiment (probably among a great
many other qualities) in the distorting lens P. uses to draw his one- to
three-dimensional characters.  At times the lens seems to twist more in one
direction than another, so that some characters might come across as more
admirable or enjoyable than others.  Naturally, we bring our own prejudices
and/or aesthetic attitudes to that kind of perception.  For example, while I
agree that Roger and Jessica are cliched lovers, I still loved their love
affair and all the romance that surrounds it, and greatly appreciated the
way it contrasted with other plot threads. I notice, however, that others on
the list seem to find them tiresome.

Anyway, perhaps the notion of a variably distorting lens may be helpful in
understanding P.'s characters and why there's some controversy regarding his
attitude toward them and their sexual relations. 

davemarc