V.V. (18) V. in Love

[Terrance]

jbor wrote:
> 
> ----------
> >From: <lycidas2 at earthlink.net>
> >
> 
> > I'm not disagreeing with you, the fact that Stencil gives
> > her some humanity,  "love,"
> 
> Again, this is incorrect:
> 
>     Stencil's dossier has it on the authority of Porcepic himself, to
>     whom V. told much of the affair. (409.26)

Yes, that's correct, I'm not disputing that. 

 Now, my pagination is odd, but here is what I am talking
about: 

After Lady V takes M to her loft, we get (p.439) this

If we've not already guessed, "the woman" is, again the lady
V. of Stencil's mad time-research. No one knew her name in
Paris. Not only was she V., however, but also V. in love.
Herbert Stencil was willing to let the key to his conspiracy
have a few of the human passions. 


> 
> Thus, it's not a question of Stencil merely "humanising" V. It is what she
> has told Porcepic.

And does what she has told him, what we have learned about
her, that she is "the women" and the Lady V.  humanize her?
I say no. Stencil adds this to the narrative and it is
Stencil that lets the key to his conspiracy have human
passion. 

> 
> > V.--V in Love, is the easy part.
> > But again, we have to deal with the Catholicism.
> 
> Catholicism, as such, really doesn't play much of a role at all in the
> chapter:
> 
>     Tourism thus is supranational, like the Catholic Church, and perhaps
>     the most absolute communion we know on earth. (409.15)
> 
> I guess it provides the simile here for a trend in modern global culture
> which Pynchon roundly condemns. But the characters and events are steeped in
> Classical mythology.

Yes, the simile here is just as you say and the classical
mythology is certainly important. However, although I think
I know my classical myths, as you explicated it with
Derrida, it  made no sense to me at all. But the Catholicism
makes sense. Would you like to read my take on it? 


> 
> Previously, you wrote:
> 
> > Religion in Pynchon, we might define it as:
> >
> >  a totalizing commitment to a
> > particular construct of ultimate reality, including
> > the nature of humanity, the significance of history,
> > and the governance of the cosmos; not ruling out of course
> > the existence of spiritual forces both malign and
> > benevolent.
> >
> > Will this work?
> 
> Well, no, of course not, for there is absolutely no evidence for this
> definition of Pynchon's work or worldview to be found in any of his texts.
> 
> best

Not of Pynchon's work or his world view. Religion in his
fiction.