Gottfried & Blicero

[Paul Mackin]

Andy's post was to jbor but I'd like to add my two cents. I would
readily agree that there are numerous cruel charges made with regard to
homosexuality as portrayed in GR (exaggerated and at times no doubt
untrue), things said that would be intolerable for fellow creatures to
direct at each other with the intent to hurt and degrade. However, P is
creating art at the edge and it would be plain wrong to insist that the
rules of polite and fair behavior (or stringent realism) should apply. I
DO NOT think P's writing here reflects any threat to straight males of Gay
Rights at the time the book was writen; rather it reflects an artistic
judgement that homoerotics--sadomasochistic or conventionally loving
depending on the situation--was the right way to portray relations between
men under conditions of ubiquitous Death. And when the sex needed to be
dirty it was as dirty as possible. P is an expert at dirty and the
greater artist for it.  I would be surprised if 25 years later he
had misgivings.

				P. 



On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, Andy wrote:

> jbor wrote
> >
> >Yes, I've read the sort of criticism which takes Pynchon on for his supposed
> >homophobia and stereotyping (and racism!) in the novel. But I think that
> >these are critics who have needed to read *GR* in particular ways in order
> >to justify their own biases, and so have gotten all tangled up ascribing
> >their own good and evil (mainly evil) constructions as Pynchon's. 
> 
> My problem with this is that there is negative reference after reference
> to male homosexuality e.g.
> 
> 319: between Enzian and Ombindi - 
> 
>         ""It embraces all the deviations in one single act" ....
> "Homosexuality, for example." No rise. "Sadism and masochism. Onanism?
> Necrophilia..."
> 
> 511: the effeminate stereotyped homosexual sentry -
> 
>         "Beasts" whimpers the Russian "oh, nasty, awful..." scampering
> off into the night.
> 
> 615 - Clive and Sir Marcus - "bitchy faggotry"
> 
> 665-668 - Dora Homosexuals, prison-camp fetishism and their "horrible
> salute to faggotry":
> 
>         Yumsy-numsy 'n' poopsie-poo,
>         If I'm a degenerate, so are you
> 
> Some of this stereotyping is just embarrassing and I wince when I read
> it (I'm gay btw). The language of the Weissman/Enzian (324) and
> Blicero/Gottried (721-2) passages is beautiful, but both Enzian and
> Gottried are seduced/abused by Weissman. Enzian is so overwhelmed by
> Weissman he compares him to Jesus Christ, Gottried and Weissman are
> "lovers whose genitals are consecrated to shit, to endings..."
> 
> I can't remember references to homosexuality to redeem this either GR or
> for that matter V, COL49 or MD (the one's I've read). GR was written at
> the beginning of the gay rights movement in the States which was very
> visible and demanding. It must have been difficult, even scary, for most
> straight men to deal with. To write "the life-cry of that love
> [homosexuality in the trenches] has long since hissed away into no more
> than this bitchy and idle faggotry" at that time is probably not
> coincidental.
> 
> This is, of course, not to damn P, it's just that in relation to
> homosexuality he/his writing is flawed, its not too big a deal.
> -- 
> Andy
>