GRGR(8) Discussion Opener

[Paul Mackin]

Thanks to Sean for understanding what I was saying re the C-word
question.

I don't GET Bonnie's reaction. For one thing it doesn't
sufficiently distinguish between the original question (discussion
opener) and the attempt by yours-truly to supply a humble
answer. Don't know if she's lighting into me or Joe. Probably
both. Sean helped lift THAT kind of confusion by quoting only MY
part (see below). Wish Bonnie would clarify further. 

Incidently, unlike Joe, I don't remember anyone (female or male) 
ever objecting vigorously to the word "cunt" in  the way Pynch
uses it. They wouldn't want to be CALLED one, of course (synecdocean
usage). Might not even have liked its LITERAL usage being tossed
around in an aggressive and reckless manner.

And even more incidently, I think Virginia Woolf used "cocks" and "cunts"
(together) in the diaries, which I guess were originally intended to be
private--for what that's worth. (Wouldn't have wanted a battle with
the printers a la J.J. with The Dubliners.)

					P.

----------
> From: Sean Carroll <carroll at itp.ucsb.edu>
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Subject: Re: GRGR(8) Discussion Opener
> Date: Monday, January 13, 1997 10:46 PM
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>