V. (Ch 3) Max's (other) disgrace/Alice

[jbor]

Your comments prompted another thought, Paul. Max joins an array of 
Pynchonian adult male characters who have engaged in carnal relations with
sexually-aware, if not until then sexually-active, juveniles. And, as with
Slothrop and Lt Weissmann in _GR_, it is the younger partner who has been
portrayed as the instigator of the seduction. It is not as conclusive as in
_GR_, as Alice's perspective is barely represented in the narrative, much
less so than either Enzian's or Bianca's there. But the argument that Max is
a manipulative child abuser merely justifying his actions after the event is
somewhat diminished by the presence of the framing narrative here. Why would
Pynchon depict Stencil impersonating Maxwell Rowley-Bugge deceiving himself
about his feelings and perceptions in his tryst with "dry-eyed" (70.29)
Alice? It simply doesn't follow.

For mine, this does seem to be a distinct theme running through all four
novels (not forgetting Metzger and his nymphette in _Lot49_; and I suppose
Paranoid Miles' come-on to Oedipa -- "I have a smooth young body ... I
thought you older chicks went for that" CL 17.25 -- serves as a variation on
the same general theme). In each instance the adult is represented as, at
the very least, NOT-evil, and more often than not the object of pity or even
empathy.

best


----------
>From: "Paul Mackin" <pmackin at clark.net>
>To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>Subject: Re: VV(5) Porpentine--embarassed, bashful
>Date: Thu, Nov 30, 2000, 2:26 AM
>

> The rock may also have something of the Petrine sense for Victoria, may it
> not?  More dwelling  on that Catholicism of hers..  Yes, Porpentine seems
> above average hesitant and scrupulous for a participant in the great game.
> An international operator with morals--nice touch. Old  Max himself is full
> or allusion and word play. Alice and her caroling--wrong spelling no matter.
> It's well--read Pynchon who is THE  allusionist of course. The fellow  just
> can't help it. And we certainly don't mind a bit.
>
> This is related to the whole idea of symbolizing mentioned by jbor I think.