perspective detective

[Paul Mackin]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2000, David Morris wrote:

> 
> >From: Paul Mackin
> 
> >And yes Them/Us is but a two dimensional  abstraction we tend to apply to 
> >various human situations on an ad hoc basis and always from a position of 
> >weakness and vulnerability, a position that tends to shift over time so 
> >that total retraction or withdrawal from such accusations will likely be 
> >necessary at the most inopportune time. Are not McH and W correct in 
> >implying that Slothrop cannot with any permanence be classed as either Them 
> >or Us?
> 
> (Not having read McH) I think Slothrop is (at least one of) the most "We" 
> charcter in GR, being (at least one of) the most abused.  And he does 
> become, for a while at least, the emblem of the Counterforce, which is the 
> "We-system" conceived to fight Them.  How does he become "They?"

I don't know that McH and W explain exactly how Slothrop
"overrides" the Us/Them dualism. I'll have to go back and read the
book. From memory there is much the two guys (one a former p-lister) don't
explain--at least in terms I would ever likely be able to understand. They
are very playful with ideas. It wouldn't surprise me greatly for
example if they were to plead that although their own interpretations may
be arbitrary they are at least no more so than anybody else's. But
that's neither here nor there. Let me at least give my own private
suggestion for how Slothrop can be considered  a Them. I'm going to skip
right over one approach--that S of course represents the domination of the
U.S. in the world--a very uninteresting observation I feel. No, I want to
talk about S's Them-ness in a more paradoxical (for want of a better
word) sense--namely how he must ultimately perceived and evaluated by the
reader, the reader in the act of reading and in the act of trying to
interpret the novel.  The thing about the impulse to assign Them status to
another is that it pretty invariably occurs under conditions of feeling
persecuted and helpless. Under conditions of being thrown into a situation
we cannot control and have little hope of really ever understanding to the
degree we might like. So who I ask it the natural person to blame for the
situation the reader is cast into? Who is the natural Them in the
equation? Well, besides the author himself?. I'll say we wouldn't be quite
human if we didn't push a little of the blame off on the hero namely
Slothrop. Where is he when we need him most (part 4). Where is he really
ever when we ever need him? 

P.S. I'm not saying GR is not possible to understand on the level of
structure and that sort of thing. Weisenburger and others have done
wonders there. But what does it all mean? Slothrop . . . ? Couldn't THEY
have told US at some point along the line? Could not Slothrop have been a
more responsible guide? No, he's just like all the rest of those
irresponsible powers of the world.

But if I find out different from McH and W I'll let you all know.

			P.