GRGR(8) Discussion Opener

[Sean Carroll]

Bonnie L. Kyburz writes:
: 
:  Paul Mackin wrote:
: > 
: > Stylistically, the TOUGHNESS of the word contrasts beautifully
: > with the  TENDERNESS of the moment. (There must be some Greek
: > word describing such a rhetorical figure.)
: > 
: > HARSH as the word "cunt" is considered by some to be, the author is not
: > committing an AGGRESIVE act--against an individual--merely by
: > putting it in his book. WRITING it is not the same as SAYING it to someone.
: > 
: Again, excuse me, but, er, bullshit.  This flimsy assertion (the last, 
: above) seems like a defense for poor old Tom Pynchon.  But really now, is 
: anyone attacking him here as a sexist, or are you just afraid, too 
: sensitized to "what we might think."  Sometimes, as a woman who enjoys 
: PYnchon, I worry about folks just holding back their honest opinions 
: (don't just need to go wild here and send me dirty notes, etc.), about 
: the perception that if I like Pynchon, I must be willing to accept 
: misogyny (I've heard this one before) or even that I enjoy it--abuse, 
: etc.  And hey, writing it, well, it is saying it--and all the more power 
: to the character doing so--don't confuse the roles too much, eh?

It doesn't look like you're disagreeing with what Paul wrote.  Saying
"cunt" to someone, in the sense of calling them by that name, many
people would judge to be offensive.  But Pynchon isn't doing that (nor,
for that matter, is any character in the novel at this point).  He's
using it as part of the author's description of a scene, and for artistic
reasons it seems to be an effective word to use.  Using it as description
in one's writing is not aggresive in the same sense as using it to
insult somebody would be, which seems to be what Paul is saying and what
you are saying, yes?

Sean

carroll at itp.ucsb.edu
http://itp.ucsb.edu/~carroll