GRGR 31 Shit'n'Shinola (is Re: Eminem (was: Influenced by GR?)

[Terrance]

jbor wrote:
> 
> ----------
> >From: Terrance <Lycidas at worldnet.att.net>
> >
> 
> > And in GR, "The fathers have no power" and "[the
> > sons--Slothrops] are condemned to the same passivity, the
> > same masochist fantasies *they* cherished in secret...." It
> > was, 40 years ago [747]. The Nazis, but "Thantz, are you
> > going to judge this man?" Yes, that's what I said, the Zone,
> > the sermon on the mount rj, because GR is psychological only
> > when it is religious and both go together into the silence
> > or the scream of death.
> 
> Sorry, Terrance, I can't make head nor tail of this.
> 
> > Pointy makes this connection clear, early on it is between
> > oriental mysticism and the psychological other(s) or
> > opposites:
> >
> > "  'The act of injuring and the act of being injured are
> > joined in the behavior of the whole injury.' Speaker and
> > spoken-of, master and slave, virgin and seducer, each pair
> > most conveniently coupled and inseperable--The last refuge
> > of the incorrigibly lazy, Mexico, is just this sort of yang
> > yin (could drive a man that seeks power mad!)  rubbish."
> > GR.88
> 
> I'm not sure that I would align Pynchon's point of view with Pointy's.
> Roger's replies to Pointy's critique of Pierre Janet and endorsement of
> Pavlovian behaviourism are given equal priority in the text. Pointy sez:

It's not a matter of heads and/or tails or aligning TRP with
a character. 

> 
>       "Pierre Janet -- sometimes the man talked like an Oriental
>     mystic. He had no real grasp of the opposites: "The act of
>     injuring and the act of being injured are joined in the
>     behavior of the whole injury." Speaker and
>     spoken-of, master and slave, virgin and seducer, each pair
>     most conveniently coupled and inseperable -- The last refuge
>     of the incorrigibly lazy, Mexico, is just this sort of yang
>     yin rubbish. One avoids all manner of unpleasant lab work
>     that way, but what has one *said*?"
> 
>       "I don't want to get into a religious argument with you,"
>     absence of sleep has made Mexico more cranky today than usual,
>     "but I wonder if you people aren't a bit too -- well, strong, on
>     the virtues of analysis. I mean, once you've taken it all apart,
>     fine, I'll be first to applaud your industry. But other than a
>     lot of bits and pieces lying about, what have *you* said?" (88)
> 
> I think I'm with the "young anarchist in the red scarf" on this one.


It's Pointy who thinks him an anarchist, right?  The look is
Pointy's, Mexico is no anarchist, he's no cheap nihilist,
"--they believe Jess...something is blocking his speech." We
cannot align Pynchon's point of view with any of the
characters, this a point I think I have argued for over a
year here. Pynchon is not Slothrop or Pointsman or
Cherrycoke or Oedipa or Roger or JAMF and neither is the
reader any of these. Jess gives us another POV on this,
loaded with allusions, the angel's--eye view, his Poisson
equations, his language, his masculine western POV she can't
grasp. This  parallels and contrasts with Pokler and Leni
and SD Truck and Nora, male and female, death and life,
etc....

"How will you use the things that grow in your network of
death?" GR.56

the Reverend Dr. Paul de la Nuit