GRGR Finale Re: Homophobia in GR?

[Paul Mackin]

I don't particularly agree or disagree with either side of this
controversy. Arguing the point is like trying to nail jello to a
wall. Who can know whether Pynchon's words reflect some degree of
what we might be tempted to call homophobia? Would he himself know for
sure? Wouldn't he be too smart to claim the case to be one way of the
other. Feelings about homosexuality, as about race and 'the other' in
general, are bound to be exceedingly complex and can  range all over the
map. Homosexuality may seem to one to be natural, joyous, inspiring,
heroic, sad, funny, tragic, terrifying, disgusting, immoral, or all of the
above. Most importantly one's feelings on such difficult topics are almost
certainly going to be in significant  degree unconsicous or 
semiconscious. In any event none of these feelings is mainly voluntary or
is a valid expression of a person's character or measure of goodness or
badness. But more importantly  such feelings absent or present seem quite
beside the point especially in the present discussion. This is because
the only thing with any real operative meaning in discussing homophobia is
BEHAVIOR--how well or poorly a person treats others different from
himself, personally or through his elected representatives, as fellow
human beings deserving of as much right to happiness as anyone else. So
the key word is BEHAVIOR and at last I get to the point--it being simply
that the writing of highly literary novels for grown up educated readers
does not under any stretch of the imagination constitute BEHAVIOR in the
realm of respecting the human rights of others. Therefore, the term
homophobic cannot even hypothetically be applied to the words of
Pynchon--or their potential interpretation by others--regardless of what
in our wildest imagination the man may possibly feel one way or the the
other about homosexuals. In other words P can use homosexuality with all
its possible stereotypes anyway he sees fit. It's always a purely literary
call. And it clearly follows that textual analysis in the effort to prove
any thesis along these lines is a totally redundant nonstarter. IMHO.

			P.



On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Dave Monroe wrote:

> Nor do I, or others here, "think it ... unreasonable ... that Pynchon is not a
> bigot," as I--as we, perhaps--seem to have to keep pointing out.  To you, at
> least.   But stereotypes are used in the novel, seemingly problematic,
> troubling, even, associations are made, and, again, "tak[ing] as a hypothetical
> starting point" that they are being neither carelessly nor maliciously
> reproduced, again, "why use 'em, why risk 'em?"   Not in the sense of, "why not
> just do without 'em, then?" but, rather, well, "why WERE they used, why WERE
> they risked?"  Start THERE, maybe, hypothetically or not.  This has got to be a
> waste of even YOUR time by now, Cap'n.  But, if I may badger further, by all
> means, please, DO "read the *whole* text in a clear-sighted and open-minded
> manner" for the benefit of Th' Class, "enact that 'suspension of
> disbelief'"--though I'm not quite sure what I'm being asked to suspend my
> disbelief IN here, but ...--"so"--*so*--"necessary for true insight and
> intellectual and spiritual growth."  SHE-EESH.  'Nuff said ...
> 
> jbor wrote:
> 
> > I don't think it is at all unreasonable to take as a hypothetical starting
> > point for interpretation of the novel that Pynchon himself is not a bigot,
> > is not concerned with perpetuating existing stereotypes, and that therefore
> > prejudiced or negative attitudes towards homosexuality, tribal African
> > cultures, women, drug users, non-Christians, and other minority groups
> > and/or individuals are *not* offered by or consolidated in the text. So
> > prominent are the stereotypes against and persecution of many or all of
> > these groups, both in the popular and historical imaginations, that it would
> > seem much more likely to me that he would have altogether avoided dealing
> > with such characterisations and subject matter unless he had been concerned
> > to address them in some depth, and that he has some sort of point to make.
> >
> > Readings which appear to isolate and see implicit vilification of one or
> > another of these groups appear to me to be coming at the text with such
> > prejudices and stereotypes already in place:
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > That early scene featuring Pudding and Katje, or the later episodes with
> > Slothrop and Greta, Slothrop and Bianca &c, beg the question of why this
> > reader has seen a need to single out the homosexual liaisons alone as
> > indicative of such associations. Even Roger and Jessica's affair is carried
> > on in a house in the "stay-away zone, under the barrage balloons" in a town
> > to the south-east of London (41.28); and I wonder if the sexual excitement
> > of their trysts isn't being enhanced by the constant imminence of death --
> > particularly for Jess (53.4) -- as the rockets continue to fall nearby, as
> > much so as Blicero's "nihilistic [...] pleasure" at the same sort of
> > prospect from a misfire seems to enhance the sexual tension of der
> > Kinderofen game back in Holland (96-7).
> >
> > Furthermore, the manner in which the liaison between Weissmann and Enzian in
> > the Sudwest is depicted actually overturns the stereotype as it is the youth
> > who freely initiates the sexual act between the two men (100). A subversion
> > of the expected power dynamic is repeated in that final scene with Gottfried
> > and Blicero as well (721-4).
> >
> > A few -- a very few -- critics have also seen the need to conjecture about
> > the putative carelessness or malice of Pynchon's depictions of race, gender
> > and sexuality in *GR*. I would contend that the mooted flaws therein are in
> > the reader's eye only: the symptom of an unwillingness or inability to read
> > the *whole* text in a clear-sighted and open-minded manner, to enact that
> > "suspension of disbelief" so necessary for true insight and intellectual and
> > spiritual growth.
> >
> > best
> >
> >                                 * * * * *
> >
> >     "Only when you can overcome the difficulty of changing yourself
> >                can you change the people around you."
> >
> >                                 Nelson Mandela (Sydney, 4 Oct 2000)
> >
> >                                 * * * * *
>