GR opening (+ Re: Holocaust as metaphor?

[jbor]

Excellent post. Thanks.

Yes, a "subjunctive holocaust", and yes, "no-one owns language". I certainly
agree with you that the opening and the Candy Drill scene are vastly
different. I also wonder about the "creative process of the opening" you
mentioned previously. I'm less inclined to view it as a failure that Pynchon
finally put in anyway; so much else in the text hinges on it being there,
and being just so. Or perhaps I can't now imagine the text without it there,
or being any other way. But what strikes me is that where so many other
novels end in ambiguity, inconclusion, frustration for the reader, this one
*opens* that way. This sets the tone for the rest of the reading, makes the
reader very conscious of the act of interpreting (making him or her
"uncomfortable", as you say) -- even when things seem to be as damn obvious
as they have ever been in any realist/naturalist literary recount. That
ending -- or *endings*, both the textual launch and Ascent of the 00000, and
its metatextual Descent -- are by contrast to the opening sequence
extraordinarily straightforward imo.

But as has been pointed out, the ending relentlessly loops the reader back
to that beginning after all. Puts me in mind of Eliot's 'Little Gidding':

     We shall not cease from exploration
     And the end of all our exploring
     Will be to arrive where we started
     And know the place for the first time.

That elusive "journey" -- the longing for "the unimaginable Zero summer" ...

But all 'Four Quartets' are relevant, and beautiful in their own right, of
course. 'Burnt Norton' begins, in part:

      Time present and time past
      Are both perhaps present in time future
      And time future contained in time past.
      If all time is eternally present
      All time is unredeemable.
      What might have been is an abstraction
      Remaining a perpetual possibility
      Only in a world of speculation.
      What might have been and what has been
      Point to one end, which is always present.
      Footfalls echo in the memory
      Down the passage which we did not take
      Towards the door we never opened
      Into the rose-garden. My words echo
      Thus, in your mind.
                                   But to what purpose
      Disturbing the dust on a bowl of rose-leaves
      I do not know.
                                   Other echoes
      Inhabit the garden. Shall we follow?
      ...
      Time past and time future
      What might have been and what has been
      Point to one end, which is always present.

                 ... both a new world
      And the old made explicit, understood
      In the completion of its partial ecstasy,
      The resolution of its partial horror.
      ...

For those interested:

http://web.wt.net/~wmanuel/wine/poems/eliotfq.html

     "The river is within us"

best


----------
>From: jporter <jp4321 at IDT.NET>
>

>
>
>> From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
>> Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 08:25:31 +1100
>
>> ----------
>>> From: <jp4321 at IDT.NET>
>
>>> I think a lesser artist would have shied away from such an offensive
>>> juxtaposition.
>>
>> I suppose I agree. The term "juxtaposition" effectively sidesteps the
>> distinction between text and metatext, but I still think it's a distinction
>> which needs to be made. My point was that if it's simply a "metaphoric
>> allusion" operating at the level of the narrative then The Holocaust has
>> been appropriated by Pynchon to exemplify Slothrop's tastebuds.
>
> I think there is a significant difference between the opening and the candy
> drill. Although there is a "he" in the opening, the pov is blurred, it is
> third person, but more universal. All the echelons, preterite as well as
> "green-stained VIP faces remembered behind bulletproof windows, are being
> "carried out to salvation." No one is excluded, apparently, and there are
> hints that this will include the reader: "Each has been hearing a voice, one
> he thought was talking only to him..." This is the end. The twin references
> to lead and iron can be read as suggesting the end of the line for both
> processes of the star cycle: fisson and fusion, from which all the heavier
> elements of the periodic table have been formed, upon which life depends-
> truly the end. The ghosts of rats as cave painting suggests evolution and
> the origination of culture and language, i.e., humanity. Mammals got their
> big break when another screaming came across the sky wiping out t. rex and
> company. "It has happened before..." This is the other shoe. No shinola.
>
> I think the evidence for reference to The Holocaust, also, is credible. But
> this coming disaster, it seems to me, is a subjunctive holocaust, a
> vaticination, the product of a still uncertain future- conditional and more
> universal. The scene appears to be Pirate's dream. The Holocaust was not so
> universal, nor, in retrospect, can its reality be considered conditional.
> There was no waking from a bad dream, no book that could be closed and set
> down, and life resumed. I am not a Holocaust survivor, nor are any of my
> direct relatives. None of us were ever gassed or worked or starved to death
> because of our race or creed or any other accident of birth, by a determined
> group of murderers. Although my father risked his life as a tail gunner in
> an allied bomber over occupied europe, he volunteered- big difference.
>
> It would be easy for me to forgive the author for generalizing what is
> ungeneralizeable to enhance his art, to underscore the seriousness of his
> work, and to recognize the courage of his choices. But I do not feel
> comfortable doing that, and maybe that's the point.
>
> The holocaust of the candy drill, however, is much more to my taste. This is
> vintage Pynchon and can stand up to a vintange Rothschild any day. No one
> owns language, is at least part of the point. It is an act of remembrance,
> as well, linked to the dandelion wine scene in Lot 49 (thanks, Max). But it
> can stand completely on its own. The humor is undeniable and works perfectly
> well all by itself. Now that we know the deeper connections, however, there
> can never be laughter without tears. To the victims of unspeakable horror,
> Pynchon has given voice.
>
> Of course, as usual, I prefer my own interpretation: the hidden reference to
> Terry Southern's Candy being simultaneously drilled by her diapered father
> and the inanimate buddha, but then, as Ralph Wayvone, Jr. well knows, there
> is no accounting for taste. We all see the world through different windows.
>
>
>>> The novel is filled with contradictions, some contained in
>>> set pieces, some spread out over the length of the novel. Slothrop comforts
>>> a young victim of a rocket strike.
>>
>> More that the young victim is comforted by Slothrop's presence. He can't
>> actually do anything, feels like an "idiot"; he doesn't even have any gum
>> for her, only that Thayer's Slippery Elm (anyone ever had this? it sounds
>> disgusting -- like Fishermen's Friends? -- and has a sort of resonance with
>> the Candy Drill episode later), for which she is humbly and poignantly
>> grateful even so. (I could almost read an allegory of the belated American
>> entry into WWII in this, supposedly rescuing the 'pride of Britain' but not
>> really -- just substituting one sort of candy in place of another, really --
>> in this little setpiece.)
>
> That he tries inspite of his awkwardness and high risk of failure says
> something, similar perhaps to the message I get from the author's attempts
> in the opening scene.
>
>>> Later, he fucks and deserts Bianca.
>>
>> "Fucks and deserts", or "is fucked and deserted by"? Is there a difference?
>> Is it important?
>
> She certainly fucks him, We are stuck in his head, primarily, and can't be
> sure of her motivations. Later he is in a panic, on the slippery deck, as he
> seems to lose her trail. Whether manipulated or not, he seems upset, and we
> are told he has joined the ranks of Pilate, by not staying with her. Was it
> all predestined?
>
> jody
>