M&D Saturday night in Delaware

[jbor]

Couldn't agree more with everything you've written here. Categories like 
"gay" and "lesbian" (and "non-gay", "straight", "bi" etc) are just
inappropriate and discriminatory, even when they are mandated and upheld as
affirmative and the preferred labels of distinction by sub-cultural
organisations. I think that that scene between Ishmael and Queequeg, as well
as being hilarious, is also extremely touching, as is the (loving?) bond
which develops between them in *MD*. I think that Pynchon owes a lot to
Melville, and that this aspect is one of many where the connection is
apparent, particularly in that reference to "how it is out in the Forest,
over the Coastal ranges, out of metropolitan Control" -- i.e. the places
where Queequeg comes from and where our (Ishmael's, Cherrycoke's,
Cherrycoke's listeners', Melville's, Pynchon's, *and* their readers' --
*our*) narrow "metropolitan", 'civilised' definitions don't apply at all.
Notions of 'gay' and 'straight' certainly wouldn't have entered into
Queequeg's worldview, and it's only Ishmael (and his author) who are being
precious and coy about it with their references to a marriage-bed. I see
Pynchon as being at one remove from such preciousness is all, much more open
and self-conscious than Melville. And I doubt that either Mason or Dixon --
the historical Mason & Dixon, the *real* men -- could have come anywhere
near such an appreciation.

And what I mean by homoeroticism in Melville are the extensive and frequent
descriptions of male physical beauty -- this, apart from, say, a couple of
passages depicting Gottfried and Jesus in *GR*, isn't really Pynchon's gig
at all.

> It seems sad that there can be no "affection beyond
>> a certain enclosure."

Yeah, I think that's the point.

best


----------
>From: "Judith A. Panetta" <judy at firemist.com>
>To: "pynchon-l at waste.org" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>Subject: Re: M&D Saturday night in Delaware
>Date: Fri, Aug 4, 2000, 3:25 PM
>

> Perhaps our limits ...our attitudes towards sexuality is
> predicated on prejudice. What are the limits of any
> relationship? Without a gender bias would it seem so
> surprising that these two individuals would become
> physically intimate? Not meaning to dredge up testimony from
> a "not distant enough" impeachment...but... in our
> definitions of sex we  erect a wall which puts a full stop
> on intimate expression in situations deemed "inappropriate."
> Sex is... handy for procreation. And you need both genders
> for that. Sure, you bet cha. But technology has broadened
> the spectrum. Sex is... a demonstration of affection when a
> hand-shake just won't do. As I'm writing this,I'm beginning
> to feel that terms like "gay" and "straight" are just bad
> taste.
>
> So what's the point? I remember reading the scene with
> Ishmael and Queequeg - such tenderness. Homoerotic? I guess.
> I'm not sure if I know what that means anymore. If the scene
> must have a label, then so be it.  Ishmael became
> immediately sympathetic to me , simply for his trust and
> openess to the physical expressions of another. Does that
> makes him "gay?" Gay-like? Maybe just gay-lite. Maybe we're
> just ready for that trip.
>
> And well then - there's those men of the hour: Mason and
> Dixon. And although I'VE NOT FINISHED the book, it does not
> surprise me that Mason would feel deeply for Dixon. For what
> they've witnessed, what they've been through. Jeez...I want
> to fuck them and I wasn't even there. But I digress. In the
> context of the fiction, Mason & Dixon have so far developed
> a deeply caring if contentous relationship out of shared
> experiences. What response would be the appropriate and
> non-gay? It seems sad that there can be no "affection beyond
> a certain enclosure."
>
> My... my...such a lot of wind from a flip remark from a
> public historian. As I missed the first go-around for M&D -
> forgive me if I'm waving a dead chicken.