Pornography

[Michael Perez]

Max wrote (in part):
               "I propose that Pynchon's various lovers are a depiction
of the varieties of sexual behavior that he wants to put forth, an
erotic typology of all the various sex activities that suit his
thematic purpose. Various individual readers will respond to his/her
favorite type of behaviors.  Maybe it is cynical market building on his
part.  Maybe he is suggesting we are all hard-wired soft-machines. 
That the notion of "the penis he thought was his own," is common to all
of us, our sexual preferences an accident of early conditioning, not
necessarily nefarious.  In any event, the penis mightier than the
sword, or the basic biological drives are very strong, no matter on
what they're focused.  We are all in it together.  IMHO that's what
he's saying on one level.
                "Then again, as a satirist (a posture that presumes a
commonly held moral landscape), maybe he is holding some of our sexual
behaviors up to ridicule as Dante does in his Inferno.  Major Marvy,
for one, doesn't get off too lightly.  In other words, in Pynchon's
hands 'pornography' is another trope in his bag of tricks.  It has a
purpose beyond rubbing our collective nipples, IMHO.  Any opinions on
just what that might be?"

I don't think it's so much that TRP is holding these behaviors up to
ridicule, although I'm pretty sure you're right about Dante.  I don't
think we're supposed to be all that shocked and appalled at the sexual
antics in GR.  I believe he knows a lot of this stuff is not the run of
the mill schtupp, but even the most dedicated to the missionary
position sexual conservative might get a little freaky once in a while
(those of us a little less dedicated a bit more often and freakier). 
As gets mentioned fairly often, there was a war on and the life
affirming physical contact that gets performed in peacetime acquires a
bit more urgency and might get embarrassingly freaky.  Even more
important to consider, I think, is the reader's role in all this.  Were
we meant to respond as voyeurs or sociological observers?  I agree that
there is a "purpose beyond rubbing our collective nipples," as Max put
it.  I think we are supposed to add these bits of information to what
we know about the characters.  It, of course, is very important WHO is
having relations with whom in the book.  This is also part of what
defines the character.  This puts a little bit of a twist in the other
current thread on the "implied reader"/"metareader" and "implied
author."

Michael 
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com