Kids

[Dave Monroe]

I was declining to disagree with Harold Bloom, just didn't, still don't, have
either the time or the energy.  Perhaps not the research as well.  Just wanted
to note that, given recent discussion on the subject of "the gnostic Pynchon,"
well, that HB is pro.  But it is undeniable that Pynchon--who seems to have
actually written the book at hand (which is Gravity's Rainbow, right?), I'm
not much of one to grant claims to the complete autonomy of texts from their
authors, an author, no matter how "dead" s/he may be, "The System" is not an
autonomous entity "out there," no matter how convincing that thought might be,
but, rather, a fictional construction of Pynchon's--does indeed place his
child characters (at least ...) in some very unusual situations.  Which is not
to say that, say, some sort of Humbertian nymphetmania (or worse), or some
sort of cruel intent towards children, can be attributed TO Pynchon, but it IS
notable, and recurrent, in his texts.  I don't particularly think Nabokov was
a child molester, either, or that--to take an example made timely again
recently--Easton Ellis is a serial killer, but one can quite fairly comment
nonetheless on such elements in a given text.  It is an issue, and not one
easily to be dismissed, even if I personally am not disturbed by it, or
personally care to pursue it.

Terrance wrote:

> Dave Monroe wrote:
> >
> > ... well, I see you all beat me to yr copies of Philippe Aries's
> > Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life, so I won't even
> > attempt to rehearse the undulating history of the notion of childhood
> > innocence (though I'm taking Rousseau, Romanticism and Victorian
> > Sentimentalism as key moments, myself), but I will note that, in
> > "Christianity" (as for The Sex Pistols), no one is innocent, that
> > "original sin" thing, indeed.  Though, again, and as has been noted by
> > others, the culpability of children varies among Christianities, though,
> > presumably, baptism cleanses that there original sin away, at least,
> > although not all Christians are baptized as children, either, so ... but
> > perhaps that's all beside the point, at least as far as Pynchon,
> > Gravity's Rainbow is concerned.
>
> I don't think so, infant/adult Baptism is very important ot
> GR. This is an example of why I claim that knowledge of
> Catholicism helps one read Pynchon.
>
> Richard Poirier, in his review of GR,
> > "Rocket Power" (handily reprinted in the very useful indeed Thomas
> > Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow, ed. Harold Bloom; Bloom's introduction, by
> > the way, of course, takes an affirmative view of GR as gnostic, but I'll
> > decline to disagree here)
>
> With whom?
>
> conveniently hits a few key points on the
> > subject of Pynchon 'n' kids.  While he notes what seems to be Pynchon's
> > genuine sympathy for children--says Slothrop "will do anything for
> > little kids," something like that, right on up to an including wearing a
> > giant pig costume; he also notes Pokler's poignant series of meetings
> > with a girl and/or girls who may or may not actually be his daughter--he
> >
>
> Children are the lowest of the low, it's not simply genuine
> sympathy, they may be compared favorably with the
> pre-christian Herero prior to fairy tale infection. "Got any
> gum chum", but they get infected and they dream of machine
> guns and fairy tales lands on the moon,  like our Father
> with the plastic penis, sterility, death, and the Death
> Kingdom.
>
> also notes Pynchon's "extraordinary affection for adolescent
> > girls"--e.g., Bianca;
>
> Bianca? Wow! If that's affection, no, no, that's not a good
> example, not Bianca or Isle.
> Unless he is a self loathing misanthrope and I don't think
> there is any evidence of that.
>
> (though I'll note that > Byron is referred to as an "old
> soul"), note what Pynchon, via Jamf and  Blicero,
> respectively, puts Baby Tyrone and Gottfried through as
> well,
> > both caught up particularly twisted moments of plastics R&D.
>
> Why does Pynchon put Gottfried and Byron through this?
> These are examples of the System's pathology not Pynchon's.