Sex & the Swastika

[rj]

dmillison
> rj, your previous posts, which immediately and repeatedly rejected the idea
> that Pynchon might be referring, circuituously,  to Hitler and Geli Raubal
> in his Katje-Pudding scene, speak for themselves.

doug, you misread me. I reject no readings. I merely assert the fact
that these readings do not work for me.

> Obviously, Pynchon refers
> directly and unequivocably to certain historical personages in GR and his
> other fictions. 

Yes.

> Just as obviously, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of
> instances in his fiction where he names fictional characters after
> historical characters. 

I disagree with this.

> I've seen a recent PhD. dissertation, a brilliant
> reading of Vineland, where, by tracing out these names and their historical
> significance, astonishing counterpoint to Pynchon's surface text emerges. The current issue of Pynchon Notes contains such a detailed reading of
> COL49, a fascinating article. 

I'd be very happy to consider either of the theses put forward, if you'd
care to provide a rundown. I referred to the essay on McLintic Sphere =
Theolonius Monk as a representative example of the critical procedure.
If it is not a good example then, by all means, select another.

> Pynchon's name games go deep, I argue, and
> the revelance of actual historical fact related to his character names
> happens too often to be mere coincidence, in my opinion.

But, in virtually all cases, there are multiple possibilities, multiple
resonances. Look at the literally dozens of literal and symbolic
readings provided for Oedipa Maas in the critical works. I do not accept
that there can be a definitive reading of this name, for example.

> As you've noted
> yourself, in your posts about his German "errors" and the placement of
> certain passages at certain points in the pagination of his novel (cf your
> posts on Slothrop's brenschlussi, he is capable of great subtlety in his
> textual games.

doug, you misread me. There is great subtlety in Pynchon's manipulation
of language, and in the resonances of the characters' names. If anything
it is Katje(Geli) = Geli Raubal such that Pudding = Hitler that strikes
me as unsubtle. And we've decided that Slothrop launches himself at the
rainbow's parabolic apogee, not Brenschluss (my error that).

> I just wonder at your continuing insistence -- against some
> very convincing demonstrations to the contrary -- that he might not be
> playing similarly subtle games with his character names. 

doug, you misread me. I am not insisting, merely providing my opinions
and interpretations, as you are certainly welcome to provide yours. I
have said there is subtlety in Pynchon's naming, and *changing* of
characters' names. But I don't think it's a board game like Cluedo with
all the answers on the back of a card. I'm arguing *for* subtlety here,
I think.

> Especially when,
> as I noted in a previous post, you use the same process yourself to relate
> Thelonious Monk to McClintock Sphere.

doug, you misread me ... 

> I understand that consistency is,
> sometimes, the hob-goblin of small minds, but a little bit can't hurt now
> and again, either, don't you think?