Harper Valley PTA Report,

[Tom Stanton]

> Henry M wrote:
> I think P puts the perverse into "perverted" and decadence into the
> decky-dance[...]He's a concientious observer, but it it looks to me 
> he's a little like Ensign Morituri, and doesn't participate all that
> much, doesn't like to just get on in there himself[...]

I recall Jules/Chrissie making a comment on TRP's fascination
with human behavior (something about "surfer dude" antropology),
and studying people like a scientist. But I'm not sure you
could say GR is a non-participatory act. From the acts he chooses
to portray (corophelia, pederasty, pedophilia) through the char-
acters (Pudding, Bianca, Geli, etc.) he is very much *the* parti-
cipant: we're the voyeurs here, critiquing word choices like cunt
and weighing in on his pornographic dispositions. Which may be the
point of GR. I've sat quietly night after night during the various
flame wars fascinated by the emotions GR stirs up in all of us. The
extremes he's chosen become rallying points for various factions,
all of whom have some interesting points, some that I share, others
I question. 

For me, the dichotemy is that on one hand we have created a "moral" 
TRP who is anti-institutional/government, pro-environment, anti-tech-
nology, etc. who, to make his point, offends enough critics that they 
pass him over for the Pulitzer (1st time ever as I recall) in 1974,
calling the book "obscene." Is our anti-establishment anti-hero really 
ready for a morality make over? 

There is a line from a song in Camelot which goes something like this:

	I want to spend a tortured evening
	Staring at the floor
	Guilty & alive once more
	Fie on goodness, Fie!

Is TRP really that moral & good? Forced by literary devices to 
select the most depraved acts to make his point? Or, as I suspect, 
have all of us simply imposed too much of ourselves onto him?

(Andrew Dinn's taking me to task on the text regarding the subject
of prejudices was not for nought!)

Tom