VLVL2 (13) 4: Orwellian doublespeak and "therapy sessions"

[Vincent A. Maeder]

Pages 239 through 242:5 give us the setup that Mr. Vond has been working on
and engaging his unwilling -- as it begins to appear -- yet compliant
partner in crime, Ms. Gates -- 'though perhaps we shouldn't use such
disparaging words; perhaps comrade fits the season better?  

But what is the reason for Ms. Gates' compliance with Mr. Vond's game?  It
isn't for the sex; this list has discussed Mr. Atman's sexual prowess.  It
isn't for the movement; she would be allied with one of the characters
associated with 24fps or the PR3.  Is it for pure lust, for the uniform, for
the lure of power as Mr. Geddes suggests in
http://www.thesatirist.com/books/Vineland.html?  This seems doubtful -- Mr.
Geddes states it is an unconvincing motivation for Ms. Gates -- because if
she were then she would more fully align herself with Mr. Vond and be more
compliant to his requests.  

The more likely explanation is her fear of being trapped by the government,
a sort of necessary marriage in order to save herself for another day; a
sell out to maintain her "freedom".  This is another symbolic effort by Mr.
Pynchon to show us the nature of the film and news media.  A glaring,
personal example of how the media is a maiden to the government -- from the
McCarthy hearings and blacklists, to the unpatriotic charges for those
daring enough to speak against the Iraq war, it is an ongoing struggle for
power between the media and the government.  It is only when government
messes it up, McCarthy goes over the top, Nixon directs a break-in, George
W. lies to justify killing, that the media gains the edge.

In these three pages, we find Mr. Pynchon's fascination and obsession with
all things Orwellian even obliging us with a little pre-1984 Orwellian
doublespeak as when Mr. Vond asks Ms. Gates rhetorically, "Your lies about
him turned out to be the truth?" -- p. 240:13 -- but here we are deep in the
System seeing the used abused by the abused; Ms. Gates being fooled by Mr.
Atman who, apparently, is even unaware of his own brainwashing "therapy
session" by Dr. Elasmo.  

And the frame tightens further on the quintessential male toy, the sine qua
non of the film, that perfect prop: a gun.  Of course, sold to Ms. Gates as
if it were a prop, calling attention to itself and its symbolism of film and
TV, of government and power, of death and destruction, and also of irony in
an age when children are shot by police for brandishing water-pistols -- 

	"I can't bring a gun in the house."
	"But you can bring a camera.  Can't you see, the two separate worlds
-- one always includes a camera somewhere, and the other always includes a
gun, one is make-believe, one is real?  What if this is some branch in your
life, where you'll have to choose between worlds?"  p. 241:3-8.

Mr. Pynchon seems to be asking us this question while simultaneously showing
us the motivating decision Ms. Gates must choose between -- the truest
motivation for a character; the simple fact they must pick one of two paths
to cross over the bifurcations of life.  

What exactly is Mr. Pynchon hinting at buy this question?  Is it that the
distinction between true violence and the imagined violence of the screen is
simply the mirror's edge?  Is it that if we chose to live in the real world
we must accept the make-believe, and vice-versa?  Or that what we predict,
what we create, what we give birth to in film must transcend into reality,
and vice versa? -- some copulation between our imagination and the rough
road of life?

However we see this symbolic moment, it necessarily creates a true and
life-like motivation for Ms. Gates, despite Mr. Geddes' objections to the
contary.  How do get a character in a work of fiction to do an unbelievable
act?  By making them face an either/or decision out of their own control
while simultaneously stacking the odds so heavily in favor of where you want
your character to head.  This is exactly what Mr. Pynchon has done for us.
As he says on page 242:10-11, "both knew she had nothing more to negotiate
with."  Mr. Vond has the drop on Ms. Gates, as Dashiell Hammett might
narrate for us.  The chips are heavy in favor of delivering that Smith and
Wesson Chief's Special -- http://home.earthlink.net/~murph864/rev/cs45.html
-- to Rex's bag, to complete the setup and get the shot.

	Chip one: a chance to film a shooting, a real death -- p. 241:33 to
242:5
	Chip two: Mr. Geddes' "lust for the man in uniform" p. 241:29-30
	Chip three: Mr. Atman is an unwitting agent anyway -- p. 240:6-11
	Chip four: The continued association with, say, Mr. Vond's penis --
p. 241:31-32

And the chips weighing in favor of chucking Mr. Vond and the gun?

	Chip one: loss of her freedom -- p. 241:17-20
	Chip two: loss of her life -- Mr. Vond's veiled threat, "Sooner or
later the gun comes out," said with eyes brimming with tears -- p. 240:29-30
-- as if he might be forced to use the gun on her if she failed to comply at
some point in the future.

The calculus of the situation reminds us of the old George Burns response to
the mugger, here Mr. Vond, who says, "You're money or your life."  Ms. Gates
actually has a moment where she seems to say, "I'm thinking, I'm thinking."

And Mr. Pynchon ain't stupid about this scene.  Even though he's given his
character every motivation from the most basic and most cerebral to the most
passionate and the most vile, he still shows use her "impulse," her nature
beholden to the greater good -- p. 241:33 -- yet she understands there might
be some deeper truth, perhaps even a greater good -- p. 241:35 -- but she
succumbs to the some filmmaker's instinct to get it on film; perhaps it is
merely a justification for a decision the character must make in order to
continue the story, but Mr. Pynchon has played the cards well, he's given us
the motivation and believability for this pivotal moment in the novel.

V.