GRGR(5) Katje and the Nazis

[Mark Wright AIA]

Hi brother,
Howdy!
How do you do;
And while we're on the subject,
And while we're on the subject,
And while we're on the subject,
Howze the old wa-zoo?

The Ss "reference" (along with the OSS and the Yin/Yang thing in
mandala form) is embedded in Pirate's (?) dream as a symbol dependent
upon the *visual* properties of the circular pulley.  The specificity
of the Ss shaped spokes is the cue here.  Why spokes at all? Why
mention the pulley at all, why not just open-sided lifts on ropes
droping out of the darkness somewhere far above??  TRP invented (IMO)
this imagery self-conciously, for good and sufficient reason, to
further his larger aims in composing this big book here.

Do you mean to say that the SS must somehow be *like a pulley* for an
image of this sort to have value within the composition?  Or that only
if we can identify how the SS might somehow be *like a pulley* can the
image be correctly called a "reference?".  (Perhaps "reference" is the
wrong word; I've had no lit crit training so my vocabulary may be
inadequate).  I suppose that the SS might be thought of as an important
cog in the machine that lowered the chosen to their doom, but isn't
that sort of thing too simpleminded for TRP (or for us) to get into at
all?  Isn't it more interesting, and more useful to the task of
composing fiction, to use visual symbols of this kind to enrich the
harmonies built into the work?

Mark
Still having fun.  Argue with me.




--- rj <rjackson at mail.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
> > Howdy,
> 
> back at ya
> 
> > Can't say as I understand fully what all the fuss is about here,
> > either.  Even WITH an apostrophe the SS reference would remain
> > unmistakable.
> > Mark
> 
> Hmm. Let's see:
> 
> ... cast-iron pulleys whose spokes are shaped like Ss.
> 
> ... cast-iron pulleys whose spokes are shaped like S's.
> 
> I'm happy to see the first (actual) version as a possible
> graphological
> allusion, the second hardly so. (Which makes the fact that Pynchon
> chose
> to use the first style rather than the second significant.) But, it's
> not technically a reference either, just a coincidence of lettering.
> There's no analogy or metaphor being made between the pulleys, or the
> spokes, or anything else in the sentence, and the SS, is there?
> (Although, now that I think about it ...?) If we assume it to be a
> *definite*, intentional reference then it suddenly becomes a pretty
> gratuitous and weak and unPynchonian one, doesn't it?
> 
> best
> 

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com