Morally Neutral Knowledge

[John Bailey]

Joseph Tracy wrote...
__________________________________________________
>
> > For me as a relatively new Pynchon reader,(Vineland, V, Lot 49,some Slow 
>Learner,and Vineland)  the most troubling passages so far are the
>descriptions in utterly neutral language of the  psycho-sexual-physical
>abuse of the Herero, and its corollary in the "impalement(sacrifice) of the 
>virgin" scene. But despite this "neutral" language, indeed intimately bound 
>to the notion of neutrality is the progressive corruption and "self" 
>destruction of the abusers, amusers, and amoral excusers.
>  It seems to be in the later works, ( for me Lot 49, and Vineland)that I 
>see human connections and an affinity with life/nature( Gates and his 
>daughter, Oedipa and the rightful inheritors) giving us a glimpse of what 
>David is calling another mode of knowing and making decisions. Burned by 
>the vastness of the conspiracies against freedom, they demonstate the vital 
>surviving power of this force. I find this quality a direct contrast to
>Benny Profane who after vast experience claims to have learned nothing,
>leaving out the fact that he never opened the best gifts life offered him- 
>Paola, Rachel, Fina- because he never accepted the risks involved in 
>love(the loss of neutrality).  In the end he is the same schlemiel as at 
>the beginning, just as V is the same "neutral" self amusing intersection of 
>conspiracies and the  "required" replacement of the biological with the 
>mechanized that characterizes our current notions of wisdom.
> >

Wait till you get to GR, which is far more, well, 'troubling' as you say, to 
the point where it becomes pretty apparent that the moral neutrality is 
device you're meant to notice...but then, Pynchon isn't the author you look 
to for a consistent moral tone.

That said, it's a very different novel from the rest, and though a lot of 
people are waiting for Pynchon to write another GR, I don't think he needs 
to. The 'neutrality' slips away in later works, because it isn't that 
important. We don't need another GR! There's enough to work with in the one 
we've got. Not that the later works are moral manifestos, of course; they're 
just more, um, friendly.

Part of the problem may be overemphasising these works as an ouevre, you 
know, not looking for the differences. I think in the decade or so between 
each of these books, you'd change a little (I hope I would). And not just 
'develop' as an artist, but change, the way the world has changed around 
you. So...not to periodise too much, but the morally neutral language of V. 
and GR might not be as interesting to Pynchon nowadays.

I like what David Morris is calling Slothrop's freedom from 'allegiances'. I 
think that's a great way of putting it, and offers a way of looking at all 
the double-/triple- ... crossing in Pynchon's novels, and the sympathy they 
hold for traitors, backstabbers, double agents, the Judases of the world. Is 
loyalty bad faith? Is faith?

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com