Prejudices and Caricatures (was Roger, Jessica and all things

[Andrew Dinn]

davemarc writes:
> 
> 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.  

That's the evidence??? If C20th English is so riddled with unavoidable
prejudices then how are you able recognise the existence of such
prejudice? And if you can then why could not Pynchon. And why cannot
both of you, having recognised such prejudice, avoid it? Sorry, but
your truism is another wheel which does not turn, like original sin
(who cares whether one is guilty a priori when it's the a posteriori
sin which causes all the shit). I think you need to come up with a
better formula to beat yourself with. This one is self-defeating.

[snip]

> 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.  

Well, it's not given, that's your assumption. Where is the evidence?
Are you saying that Pynchon never writes "outside of his times"
i.e. that his writing embodies a set of presumptions which olour all
of his judgements, which are common to all writers of his generation
and some of which are not common to people who are 20-30 years
younger. Clearly, that's not always the case otherwise Pynchon would
be just another Joe Schmuck hack writer. But then if he is not always
tarred with the 1950s/60s brush how are we to decide when he is and
when he isn't. By presuming that homosexuality is such a difficult
subject for people of his age that he could never have got round
everyone else's prejudices? or by looking at the text and seeing how
what he wrote stands up to our current oh-so-enlightened and tolerant
views?

[snip]

> 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. 

Absolutely. And it also means that any definitive answers about
Pynchon's (i.e. the book's) stance on homosexuality are somewhat
underdetermined by the available evidence.


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