pynchon-l-digest V2 #1418

[Doug Millison]

I asked and observed:
>How free is the colonialized individual in the power of a
>high-ranking representative of the oppressing Authority, I wonder.
>Even without GR's colonial setting, the psychodynamics of sexual use
>and abuse of young people by adults -- which is a motif throughout
>GR, after all, via Slothrop and Bianca, Pokler and his "daughter" --
>makes it very difficult to assert with confidence that the younger
>person is acting freely, without coercion, not under duress. Seems
>clear to me that Pynchon wants to highlight this, when he chooses to
>characterize Enzian as a minor, not an adult, jailbait, rather than
>make him an adult homosexual male freely consenting (although even as
>an adult, he would be a colonial subject in that particular power
>relationship with Weissmann/Blicero). There's no reversal, not in any
>kind of practical sense that would prevent Gottfried from serving as
>sacrificial victim, nor that would undo the crimes that have burdened
>Enzian and his Herero brethren. The exploiters prevail, after all,
>and we're all waiting for the missile death as a result, when the
>novel closes. And Pynchon only escapes to tell us.


And rj answered without addressing a single issue I raised.

In his characterizations of Pokler, Bianca, Slothrop, 
Weissmann/Blicero, Pynchon clearly and directly addresses the complex 
relationships among adults and children wrt sex as well as the power 
and sexual relationships among adults in the colonial situation. 
Quite a few articles in Pynchon Notes, among other pubs, have 
discussed these issues over the years. 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. That is, by the way, the 
typical defense of the sexual predator, "the kid seduced me"; rapists 
try to excuse themselves with this lame defense, too:  "the woman was 
asking for it." Such arguments are usually dismissed quite easily, 
their absurdity self-evident.

One of the things that is most difficult for adult survivors of 
childhood sexual abuse, and particularly in the case of incest (a 
possibility that Pynchon directly raises in the case of Pokler) is 
coming to terms with the contradictory feelings of helplessness at 
the hands of the exploiter, rage at the actual abuse, and remembered 
pleasure of the actual physical sensations. Not a very happy place to 
be nor a pleasant set of issues to sort through. I know something of 
this from a long-time friend who has had to spend a lifetime dealing 
with the aftermath of incest.

rj:
>  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.


I said and continue to stand by:
>I've been faithfully
>  > following Terrance's posts ever since he started writing on
>>  Pynchon-L, and it seems to me that his critique encompasses all of
>>  GR's sexual and power relationships. I wouldn't say he's singling out
>>  homosexuality for a critique that doesn't also apply to other forms
>  > of sexuality in the novel. An even-handed approach, you might say.


rj misstated:
>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.

>Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 12:48:00 +0000 (GMT)
>From: Paul Mackin <pmackin at clark.net>
>Subject: Re: Bait Of The Day
>
>On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, s~Z wrote:
>
>>  "I strive to practice simple Christian charity when I think of you."
>
>Might not a lion eat this "Christian" with a clear conscience?
>
>			P.

Referring to yourself as a "lion" seems a tad grandiose, but go ahead.
Eat me.


-- 

d  o  u  g    m  i  l  l  i  s  o  n  <http://www.online-journalist.com>