Pornography

[Paul Mackin]

As with the cinematics theme we distinguish between USE and MENTION so
also should we do so with pornography. While aboard the Anubis the USE 
of wild, on the edge sex described to such a degree that it becomes rather
fine pornography hits us like a cannonball. But the also rather startling
MENTION elsewhere in the book of the MERE WORD in connection with such
things as writing and analysis is far from everyday run of the mill vivid 
writing. This sort of thing deserves equal discussion doesn't it?
Pynchon certainly isn't a member of the Susan Brownmiller School of
attaching provocative and shocking names to things he/she doesn't like. Of
course it is possible to make some kind of an argument that pornography
can be an actual metaphor for writing. But still. Anyway, how about it . .
.

			P.  


On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, Michael Perez wrote:

> 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
>