is sloth lost? (was: "underlying causative process")

[Eric Rosenbloom]

Mark David Tristan Brenchley wrote [excerpted]:
> 
>         Actually, I would argue that that's the point with Pynchon's
> characters, who after all, are only characters in a book. ... If there's
> anything to empathise with in Gravity's Rainbow its the book itself.
>         ... Basically
> Slothrop exists as a focus around which the Counterforce can gather.
> Slothrop's not supposed to seem real, hence his progressive vanishing from
> the real world into the mandala of the Zone and eventually from the book
> itself.

Yes, that's what I was getting at. Slothrop and paranoia provide the
energy (not quite the word I want) that drives the book. The effort of
the book is to go beyond them. Just as Blicero sacrifices Gottfried to
perfect his rocket fetish, Pynchon sacrifices Slothrop to end the book
and set the reader free. But, true, Slothrop is not "lost" except as a
discreet personality: Pynchon does not kill him off, but rather spreads
his energy into every living and dead thing (as pieces of Gottfried will
be broadcast through the movie house . . .). It may or may not be
relevant that Pynch wrote an essay -- again for the New York Times Book
Review -- praising the Sin of Sloth.

Personably, I think Pig God Bodine is the most human presence (because
in the sham world of a book, humans are a race of gods) in Pynchon's
work, all the way back to Lowlands he's the one that saves your ass.
Mebbe Slothrop's got a sympathetic frequency there: Slather Up! (which
is to say, Spread it on thickly).

Yours,
Eric R