"We drank the blood of our enemies ... "

[jbor]

lycidas2 at earthlink.net wrote:

>> "...Between two station marks, yellow crayon through the years of grease and
>> passage, 1966 and 1971, I tasted my first blood. Do you want to put this
>> part in?] We drank the blood of our enemies.  That's why you see Gnostics so
>> hunted.  The sacrament of the Eucharist is really drinking the blood of the
>> enemy.  The Grail, the Sangraal, is the bloody vehicle.  Why else guard it
>> so sacredly? Why should the black honor-guard ride half a continent, half a
>> splintering Empire, stone night and winter day, if it's only for the touch
>> of sweet lips on a humble bowl?  No, it's mortal sin they're carrying: to
>> swallow the enemy, down into the slick juicery to be taken in by all the
>> cells.  Your officially defined 'mortal sin,' that is.  A sin against you.
>> A section of your penal code, that's all. [ The true sin was yours: to
>> interdict that union.  To draw that line.  To keep us worse than enemies,
>> who are after all caught in the same field of shit--to keep us strangers."
>> (GR 862)
> 
> This is page 738-39 in my copy.
> 
> So, what does it mean to you? I mean, what the hell is this guy talking
> about? 
> 
> This is a spokesman. He's being interviewed by the Wall Street Journal.
> I think it is safe to say that the WSJ is THEIR newspaper.

Is it safe to assume that "the Spokesman" here is "Kabbalist spokesman Steve
Edelmann"? (753.8)

Anyway, I think the parentheses within the Spokesman's statement come from
another voice, a voice supposedly standing for the author's voice addressing
or daring the publisher (of the novel) to include this confession: "Do you
want to put this part in?". I'd argue that generally a square bracket [thus]
equates to an insertion within a quoted passage or narrative excerpt by an
extraneous author or editor, like a stage direction in a play for example,
whereas a regular bracket (thus) indicates an elaboration or digression by
and consistent with the speaker/voice/narrator. Pynchon uses the latter type
in _GR_ far more often than the former, which already marks this particular
passage as unusual; and while there are many and varied intrusions into the
veneer of the narrative/s this is one which has captured the imagination of
many readers because it seems so loaded with significance and emotive force,
but is ultimately so damned cryptic. When the parenthetical commentary takes
over again in this passage at the very end of "the interview" the final
lines, which were, of course, excised from the citation posted, are: "We
drank the blood of our enemies. The blood of our friends, we cherished." And
then comes the catalogue entry of the fragment of Dillinger's blood-soaked
shirt.

I don't know what to make of this parenthesis either but have always
suspected that it is something very personal, confessional, private, from
Pynchon himself. It clearly has nothing to do with Afghanistan 2001. Or
Vietnam. Or any historical war.

best



> But what on earth is this spokesman talking about?
> I mean I have a lot of ideas about the passage, but what do you think it
> says?