Gottfried & Blicero

[jbor]

Hi Andy, thanks for your response

I don't read "homophobia" into these negative references, however. And there
are negative references aplenty to heterosexuality in all its variations,
but even to the "acceptable" variety as well (Rog and Jess, for eg). Plus I
think you need to keep in mind the contexts of the various references. I
disagree with some of your readings too btw I think.

> 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..."
>

Yes. In this dialogue Ombindi is baiting Enzian by including Enzian's sexual
preference at the top of the list. The narrative editorialises on Enzian's
behalf where you've elided:

     "It embraces all the Deviations in one single act" Enzian sighs,
   irritated, but does not call him on this use of "Deviations". Bringing up
   the past is part of Ombindi's game. "Homosexuality, for example ...

The capitalisation and then the quote marks offset the sentiment, surely,
doubly so in fact? And Ombindi is challenging the motivation for Enzian's
quest for self-immolation in the 00001 (i.e. suicide) by "bringing up the
past". The "strange rapprochement" struck between the Oberst and the Empty
One leader is that their goals are the same, but their reasons are
(possibly) diametrically opposed.

> 511: the effeminate stereotyped homosexual sentry -
>
>         "Beasts" whimpers the Russian "oh, nasty, awful..." scampering
> off into the night.

Not sure that his homosexuality is explicit. Certainly it is stereotyped
male effeminacy but I think you as the reader are completing the other half
of the stereotype.

>
> 616 - Clive and Sir Marcus - "bitchy faggotry"

This is where a contrast is made between soldiers' homosexual love in the
trenches and homosexual "love" in aristocratic peace-time Men's Club I
think. It's a negative reference to decadence certainly. On the previous
page Clive considers Sir Marcus's passes with the thought that (" ...
Scorpia's been so damned bitchy lately.")

>
> 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).

It certainly isn't funny, but don't think it is quite meant to be either.

> 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.

But what we read in both passages is the younger man as willing and equal
partner. Enzian says "*We make Ndjambi Karunga now, omuhona*" and Weissmann
is shocked because the boy uses the same word for God and fuck.

> 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 don't know that there is any judgement in this: "there have to be these
too ... Are they to be denied, passed over, all of them?" the narrative
asks, quite empathetically imo.
>
> 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).

I think that Slothrop's sodium amytal homophobia/xenophobia -- headfirst
down the toilet thinking "his ass up in the air helpless, and with Negroes
around that's just what a fella doesn't want" (64.8) -- shows that Pynchon
is aware of white heterosexual American men's knee-jerk fears and prejudices
and able to address (and satirise) these in an up-front kind of way.

> GR was written at
> the beginning of the gay rights movement in the States which was very
> visible and demanding.

I think *GR* was probably written in bursts throughout the 1960s and early
70s. I think that gay men had been going public in the US from the mid 50s,
though gay rights activism proper probably doesn't begin until the 70s.

> 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.

I think that it *is* an important part of the narrative and thematic
concerns of *GR* and that Pynchon is consciously *challenging* some of the
negative stereotypes he represents.

best (and welcome)


> --