GR 'Streets'

[s~Z]

>>>I was referring specifically to the rhetorical question, "mightn't we
find
some way back?" The narrator or Slothrop is meditating on whether there is a
way back to a time before these streets were used for "commerce ... war ...
repression". There seemed to be some assertion that this phrase was an
obvious Biblical reference. In the context, I don't think it is. (Or, if it
is, what is it?)<<<

I agree that the literal reference is back to before commerce, etc., but the
issue of Christian faith is also in the section, overtly in the chaplain
paragraph and in the closing references to the Cross and Virgin. In this
context, seeing the comment as also including a reference to "back to Eden"
is not too much of a stretch, nor is seeing the imagery of snake and 30 y/o
poles (crucifixion) and trees as Christian imagery. There is a certain
symmetry to the section, beginning with snake/poles/trees and ending with
phallus/Cross/Tree. When you add the context of the entire novel and its
grappling with the issues of religious symbolism, death, redemption,
salvation, and war, seeing the imagery as part of this may not be provable,
but it has context.

>>>As we disagree on the attitude of the narrative voice towards the
garrison-churches, the chaplains and the preaching, there's not much point
dwelling on it.<<<

We disagree about some specifics. I think the section sets up a contrast
between how Christian faith can be something to hang onto for the pious, yet
turn around and be destructive to their enemies.

>>>That said, the paragraph opening "Even in a street used for
that, still there will be one time ... " which serves as a segue after the
chaplains passage, is quite consistent with my argument that the tone of the
narrative voice is at odds with those Christian certainties which were
preached by the chaplains.<<<

Agreed.

>>>Yes, there is Biblical imagery at the end of the section, but the
associations are still negative. (The astrological references are more
ambivalent - but what "the pale Virgin rising in the east" is meant to be or
the significance of 17" 36' I'm still not clear about ... )<<<

If you do an astrological chart for Hiroshima at the time of the blast, the
chart would give all of that information. According to Weisenburger, all the
astrological details are accurate, e.g., the constellation Virgo was rising
in the East at that angle, and the sun was midway through the house of Leo.
Cayce has a book with those kinds of readings in it. Perhaps TRP used that
as a source. I would be interested on seeing Cayce's info on Hiroshima's
chart to see if it has any bearing on the context.

>>> Nowhere in this section does the narrative voice endorse a religious
explanation of
existence.<<<

Agreed. It does imply that Christian faith can be smug, narcissistic, and
destructive.

>>> (In fact, I'd say that the narrator or narrative voice is
inclined more towards astrological beliefs than to Christian ones! <<<

The narrative voice has detailed knowledge of astrological charts and ties
the imagery of astrology into Christian imagery (Virgo = Western deity), as
many astrologers do as well. The use of the word 'sovereign' is telling as
it alludes to one of the attributes of Calvin's God.

>>>My point was that the literal significance of the
notion of "passage" in the two paragraphs, of the passengers on the bus, and
of the narrator or Slothrop wondering whether there might be "some way
back", is secular.<<<

The literal significance is as you say. In a chapter ending with Cross,
Tree, and an astrological chart for a city, I don't think we need to stop at
the literal.

>>>I'm not sure that the Crucifixion is presented as this. It is most
definitely not presented as an assurance of personal redemption by the
narrative voice.<<<

No, it is presented that way by other characters in the text. The chaplains.

>>>The way "the Cross" is referenced in the text - the way it
has been described (the "hey-lookit-me smugness" of it) and imaged (it's
compared to the A-bomb mushroom cloud over Hiroshima, and to "a giant white
cock, dangling in the sky straight downward out of a white pubic bush") -
doesn't put a positive spin on the Christian beliefs associated with it at
all.<<<

No. So why is the Cross presented as something so cocky?

>>>All the associations with Christian faith in this
section are negative ones, the narrative tone towards it (as with many other
examples throughout the novel) verging on dismissive. I know we disagree.<<<

I just don't think saying the paragraph or the section is 'dismissive' of
Christian faith does justice to the specific imagery in the section. We go
from moon to sun. We go from 30 y/o poles to Crosscock Bombs.