Weissmann/Blicero

[Dave Monroe]

... but in re: Stonewall, guess I wasn't clear on this, but ... not
suggesting any allusion to Stonewall, per se.  Rather, finding
interesting not only the prevalence of homosexual characters, but also
the implicit to outright homosexual stereotypes used (associations with
death, disease, sterility, on one hand; S&M, pederasty, camp on the
other), but giving Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow the (seeimingly warranted)
benefit of the doubt that such stereotypes were not being used
unthinkingly, perhaps maliciously, even (cf. race, maybe gender, here),
one wonders, well, why use 'em, why risk 'em?

But noting that homosexuality in GR is often (typically? always?)
articulated with power relationships, politics, even (again, that final
paragraph of the third section, for example, or those Dora "175s," or
just about any relationship, however remote, even if "only by name,"
involving Blicero), and reaclling earlier discussions of that
master/slave dialectic, Nietzsche's particular ("deconstructive," even)
take thereupon (cf. FN on pain, causation in general), and Pynchon's,
Gravity's Rainbow's perhaps similar (perhaps) takes on, say,
cause/effect, Elect/preterite, whatever, well, wondering, given the
relatively recent inflection the word, "gay," had taken, at least in
American English, in popular usage, if perhaps the word was being used
as a bridge of sorts betwixt "homosexual" and "master/slave dialectic,"
after Nietzsche (and, perhaps, Sartre, Fanon) via Nietzsche's The Gay
Science?  Not that homosexual relationships hadn't long been associated
with power relationships, served as such, even (again, see Foucault
...), but ... thinking out loud, is all, but, well, again, why the
association ...

Terrance wrote:

> Dave seemed to be
> suggesting that perhaps the Stonewall Riots were being
> alluded to here, but again, taking a very literal stance,
> while knowing the history of gay rights here in NYC and
> having in the past posted on the post war cops, with fire
> hoses, dogs, Isle in the streets, the cops beating the
> children, the S&M allusions there, and reading the novel
> with these things in my memory and of course with the
> hindsight of VL, but, but, the literal stance I want to
> maintain to discuss Weissmann/Blicero, so I won't be lumped
> in with your phantom tormentors, I asked where is the
> textual support for such echoes, hints, and so on.
>
> Here's what I posted and I stanb by this too:
>
> See Weisenburger's Companion page 206-07. Brown, Wolfey.
>
> S&M Homo sexual sodomy, impotence, sterility, white sperm &
> black shit and TRP may have the 60s in mind, gay rights, I
> find no evidence of that, but he certainly had a lot of
> Western (mostly German Holy Roman history to the rise of
> Hitler) in here, yes not just hints and suggestions, real
> dates, names we don't have to decode, yes and lots of
> critics, particularly in the last year or so have tried to
> connect this to the S&M etc., Amerikkka, of the 60s radicals
> but, a big but, like Moma Kass's ass, where is the textual
> support?
>
> AND
>
> When you extrapolated, and won't elaborate on your
> extrapolation, suggesting that the reason for Blicero's
> slide was in some way due to his open homosexuality I said:
>
> What evidence is there of this? His homosexuality is the
> reason for his slide? Where is this? Also, could be another
> reason why they choose him, not their homosexuality but
> their need to be imprisoned, controlled. There freedom is a
> banishment not because they are homosexuals.
>
> I stand by this too. But you keep cutting my posts and
> frustrating the debate, cutting this last sentence out and
> calling me on bigotry. I don't much care about being called
> a bigot or whatever here, it's not nice, it's not fair but
> it's so ridiculous it's is comical as Can T Wait said, your
> calling me or Doug M a racist is so ridiculous, oh if you
> knew the simplest facts about us you would know how
> ridiculous your name calling is, but I would prefer to
> discuss GR and I don't want to make light of serious topics
> or get into a fight of words. If we all care so much about
> ridding the world of bigots we shouldn't spend so much time
> talking about it. We could, as many of us do, you included
> I'm sure, act.
>
> Replying to my question above you posted textual support for
> Weissmann's open homosexuality, which by the way, were
> passages we had discussed, you and I, not more than a week
> ago, so obviously I agree that Weissmann was open with his
> homosexuality.