GRGR Finale Re: Homophobia in GR?

[jbor]

----------
millison:
>

> Pynchon writes, in a GR passage that immediately follows a discussion
> of Enzian, the rocket, and racial suicide

The passage millison cites is an editorialisation about what went on in
Sudwest a "generation earlier" than the 1904 rebellion (i.e. about the time
Marx himself was writing), and that "simple choice for the Hereros, between
two kinds of death: tribal death and Christian death. Tribal death made
sense. Christian death made no sense at all." (318.4)

Thus, the reference to "Karl Marx, that sly old racist" has nothing
whatsoever to do with the relationship between Weissmann and Enzian.
Enzian's parentage is mentioned at this point in the text, however -- the
Russian sailor who sired him might well be an exemplum of such behaviour --
but it is not until several pages later that we get another glimpse into
Enzian's pov about what went on between Weissmann and he in Sudwest:

     No return. Sixty percent of the Herero people had been exterminated.
     The rest were being used like animals. Enzian grew up into a white-
     occupied world. Captivity, sudden death, one-way departures were the
     ordinary things of every day. By the time the question occurred to
     him, he could find no way to account for his own survival. He could
     not believe in any process of selection. Ndjambi Karunga and the
     Christian god were too far away. There was no difference between the
     behavior of a god and the operation of pure chance. Weissmann, the
     European whose protege he became, always believed he'd seduced Enzian
     away from religion. But the gods had gone away themselves; the gods
     had left the people. . . . He let Weissmann think what he wanted to.
     The man's thirst for guilt was insatiable as the desert's for water.
                                                               (323.28)

It seems important that the "extermination" and subjugation of the Herero
people had been carried out long before Weissmann arrived on the scene, that
Enzian "grew up into a white-occupied world". The word Pynchon gives to
Enzian to describe his relationship with Weissmann is "protege" -- not
'catamite' or the 'victim of rape or sexual abuse'. This word is used again
in the narrative at 404.16. Other words and phrases used to describe the
Enzian/Weissmann dynamic are: "pet" (322.25: Weissmann's pov); "Weissmann's
Monster" (404.17: the scientists at the Versuchsanstalt, "behind his back");
and the "Berlin Snoot supreme, Oberhauptberlinerschnauze Enzian" (660.5: the
other Schwarzkommando). In the passage cited above it is stated that Enzian
*chose* to "let Weissmann think what he wanted to." This indicates and
reinforces to me that the "power and sexual dynamics of the colonial
situation that Pynchon depicts" are nothing like the oppressor/victim
scenario millison has invented.

millison also states that there is "no possibility of a loving or sexual
relationship between Enzian and Weissman/Blicero" apart from the colonial
situation. Does this also mean, then, that there was "no possibility of a
loving relationship" developing between a slave-owner and slave in colonial
America? Surely there are documented cases of this? Indeed, more germane to
the example to hand in the text, is it being suggested that there is no
possibility of such a relationship between the white and black *descendants*
of this type of social dynamic? The connexion millison tries to force on the
text is an illogical and indefensible one imo.

Enzian was born in 1905 (see p. 305 for the story of Enzian's Russian
father), which would make him 17 or more when he is with Weissmann in
Sudwest. Gottfried, a German soldier, is also referred to as "boy" (eg.
724.11). I have no problem with the definitions of this term millison
quotes. In none of these does the term "boy" denote 'minor', or 'jailbait',
however, though these might well be homonymic associations of the broad
category in Western cultures:

boy n. 1. a male child; lad; youth. 2. a man regarded as immature or
inexperienced [...] 5. *usually derogatory.* (esp. in former colonial
territories) a Black or native male servant of any age [...] 7. short for
'boyfriend' [...]; from C13 (in the sense: male servant; C14: young male):
of uncertain origin; perhaps from Anglo-French *abuie* fettered
(unattested), from Latin *boia* fetter.
                                         [Collins]

*******

> I asked and observed:
snip
> And rj answered without addressing a single issue I raised.

The text speaks for itself I think. You should read it some time.

>>millison only yesterday seemed to be of the opinion that it is
>>"objectionable many of the ways that Pynchon has characterized homosexuality
>>in GR".
>
> In reality (as opposed to that theater in rj's mind wherein he
> rewrites Pynchon-L to meet the needs of his fevered fantasies and
> fears), I observed in a post the other day that somebody else, who
> identified himself as gay, wrote a P-list post in which he noted
> several characterizations of homosexuality that he found
> objectionable.

Indeed, that's the one. I thought by recalling it you were concurring with
the sentiment. Are you saying now that you *disagree*? That it *isn't* your
"opinion" too? Seems strange to have cited it at all if that were the case.

> Ignoring those dimensions of
> GR results in the kind of simple-minded interpretation that might
> take the colonial oppressor/Nazi madman off the hook for his crimes
> and instead put the responsibility for Weissmann/Blicero's sexual
> aggression on the victim of his aggression.

The "crime" of homosexuality? Where is "sexual aggression" ever entertained
as a component of the relationship between Enzian and Weissmann? Time and
again this stereotype of sexual passivity/aggression is overturned in the
narrative: Jess and Roger; Enzian and Weissmann; Greta and Slothrop; Bianca
and Slothrop; "Ilse" and Pokler. Furthermore, it occurs to me that the
interpretation of Weissmann/Blicero as a "colonial oppressor/Nazi madman" is
the stereotypical, or "simple-minded", one. As I've noted, he is the
character most venerated by other characters in the text -- quite reliable
witnesses such as Katje, Enzian, Gottfried seem to adore him unequivocally.
If he were simply a "Nazi madman", or if that is the characterisation of him
that Pynchon wanted to project, how is it that these and other characters
(Narrisch, Greta, the 175s) don't perceive him in that light at all?

> That is, by the way, the
> typical defense of the sexual predator, "the kid seduced me";

As the text illustrates with Slothrop and Bianca? Pokler and "Ilse"?

> rapists
> try to excuse themselves with this lame defense, too:  "the woman was
> asking for it."

As the text illustrates with Slothrop and Greta?

> Such arguments are usually dismissed quite easily,
> their absurdity self-evident.

Of course they are. No need to let the text get in your way either, is
there?

>>  However, I have absolutely no compunction about calling you a
>>hypocrite, QED.
>
> Somehow, coming from an interlocutor who exhibits no scruples
> regarding rewriting the posts of others or simply making stuff up and
> claiming they said it, this barb fails to sting.

It wasn't meant as a "barb"; it is a statement of fact. When I want to label
someone or something I do it directly; not in the mealy-mouthed way that you
go about things. What your assertion proved was simply that when you speak
of Holocaust denial and neo-Nazism these are in fact "fancy ways of calling
someone" -- me -- a Holocaust denier or a neo-Nazi. When I say something
"sounds like bigotry" that's exactly what I mean, *not* that that person is
"a bigot".