GR 'Streets'

[Terrance]

jbor wrote:
> 
> >> The fact that the destruction and carnage in Hiroshima is associated with
> >> Christian imagery adds to and
> >> confirms the negative attitude towards Christianity which is evident
> >> throughout the section (and the novel).

This might be the case. 

But one would have to demonstrate that the novel has a negative attitude
toward christianity first and then demonstrate that the destruction and
carnage in Hiroshima is associated with Christian imagery and this fact 
adds to and confirms the negative attitude towards Christianity in the
novel generally. That's a big task. 

Thus far, I think Robert has failed to demonstrate that the section
(streets) has a negative attitude toward christianity. I think he's dead
wrong about the army-chaplain's talk and what the narrative's attitude
toward what the army-chaplain says and why he says it. These are,
afterall, just ordianry men that are dying. Robert's reading of the
army-chapalin, however, is exactly right when we apply it to Their
priest, father Rapier. 

Overall, his reading is a very good one. 

He says, 
> 
> I think that Slothrop is making the connections between the newspaper image
> and these things. These are all things which have weighed heavily on his
> mind (of course, the news of the A-bomb dropped on Hiroshima has left him
> totally awestruck and in despair), and there are interpretative
> possibilities both for why Slothrop makes the connections and why the text
> has Slothrop make the connections. 

This seems to be a weak point. First of all we don't know if Slothrop is
making these connections. The text doesn't tell us that he is thinking
about the connections in this section. While these matters have been
heavy on his mind,  and we can assume that he would make some of these
connections,  and while the text makes them (some of these connections
are made in Slothrop stream of consciousness narrative in other
sections) we are told only that Slothrop sits on the curb, looks at the
newspaper for a long time and doesn't remember how long he sat looking
at it. We are not told that he makes any connections, we are not told
that he is awestruck, we are not told that he is in despair. The text
does not have Slothrop make the connections. 

That being said, Robert presented his reading as his thoughts ("I
think...) and as interpretive possibilities. 

Also, Robert admits that he's not sure about the TREE, but does provide
an excellent interpretive possibility.   

TREE of LIFE? Yep, that'w what I think.

MOre importantly, his reading of the way in which the narrative moves in
and out of Slothrop's mind has merit. 

This is very good stuff. Difficult to argue, not easy to follow, but I
suggest that those objecting to his reading consider how he reads the
narrative voices here again. 


The "Tree" is the one that stumps
> (sorry!) me too. Slothrop has lately become very alert to trees, talks to
> trees, has incorporated them into a sort of personal system of nature
> mysticism etc. The mushroom cloud does look a bit like the way a child would
> draw a tree. Of course, it is white (bleached, unnatural etc) and really
> only a travesty or pornography of a tree. I think its placement just before
> the ellipsis (and just before the narrative reverts from quasi-stream of
> consciousness - whether Slothrop's or a separate narrator's psyche) is
> indicative of the way Slothrop's thought processes might have been working,
> contemplating his own (American) Protestant heritage, his constant pursuit
> of sexual gratification, through the prism of what has been done to
> Hiroshima by the Americans, and he's perhaps considering and reassessing his
> own newfound faith in nature schtick in this light as well. The
> capitalisation of "Tree" could indicate an allegorical category, but if it
> was the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden then I would imagine that it
> would be "the Tree" rather than "a Tree". Perhaps a more generic "Tree of
> Life" reference?
> 
> >> There's a distinct break between this paragraph and the preceding one,
> >> which is where
> >> the newspaper photo is described as reminding Slothrop of the Cross, a
> >> "genital onset", and "a Tree".
> 
> I think the narrative voice enters into Slothrop's pov and reports on what
> he sees (the newspaper fragment) and thinks and does ("He doesn't remember
> sitting on the curb for so long.... But he did." etc) in the second- and
> third-last paragraphs (and I see no obstacle to inferring that narrative
> strategy right back to the beginning of the section). I think it's
> consistent (both internally to the paragraph and in the wider context of
> Slothrop's personal and psychological progress as reported in the text) that
> he is the one making the connections which are reported.
> 
> In contrast, the astrological reading comes from outside of Slothrop's pov.
> It's a bit like the Tarot readings later on. I wouldn't go so far as to say
> that the text endorses astrology and the Tarot, but these interpretations
> are presented by the narrative voice in what to me seems an uncritical way.
> 
> best