Morally Neutral Knowledge

[cathy ramirez]

--- John Bailey <johnbonbailey at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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. 

Yup! 



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.

I agree. 


> >  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, 

right on! The most troubling thing that happens in any
Pynchon story, as far as I'm concerned, is Benny's
rejection of  Fina & Pig's attempted rape of Paola. 


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.

Not sure I understand this last part.  Iagree that V
is  and intersection of conspiracies and the 
replacement of the biological (and it's not only the
biological, she is in the process of replacing the
Virgin Mary)  with the mechanized, but I'm not sure
what this has to do with wisdom or knowledge and
neutrality. 



> > >
> 
> 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.

It's pretty obvious in those SW Africa scenes in V.
that we are expected to take notice of the
inappropriate language with which the narrator
(stencilized narrative by Pynchon) re-tells the tale.
I say inappropriate because it is not neutral
language. It is deliberately offensive. Pynchon is not
Nabokov (or what Nabokov held up as the ideal
objective, morally distanced author, even Nabokov
failed to live up to his own ideal). Pynchon is  no
moralist. But Pynchon has consistant moral principles,
but he plays with us. Don't be fooled into readin him
as some moral relativist. He's nothing like that. 




> 
> 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. 

Interesting, but I have to disagree again.  There is
no moral neutrality in GR. 

> 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.


That makes sense. People change. 


> 
> 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?


As Enzian says, don't know about that freedom. 
You can betray with a kiss or have faith. 
But you can neverr escape. And that's where the
sympathy is. 

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com