VLVL the collapse of the Youth Movement

[jbor]

>> Of course. He supplies Frenesi with the gun. That's beyond the scope of his
>> job, and it's not something which he or Frenesi tell the grand jury (even
>> though it is "his" grand jury p. 199).
> 
> He's the only one with an apparent motive, which he also supplies,
> and would be essential for a guilty verdict.

Frenesi's motive is that she likes Brock's cock so much, and she'd do
anything to have it. And that's precisely how she tries to excuse her
actions -- "you know what happens when my pussy's runnin' the show." (260)

> even thanatoid Weed, in denial as he is, recognizes that Frenesi
> is not guilty. 

I don't think this is the case at all. Is there anything in the text to
support this, or any of your other bizarre contentions?

> Notice that Weed does not exonerate Vond; nor does the
> author.

Of course not. Brock is manipulative and vengeful and he abuses his
position. Frenesi willingly does his dirty work.

> The text is multi-leveled but you
> would seem desperate to collapse it to only a single literal and
> legalistic plane where you can judge both it and Frenesi. No wonder
> you were so disappointed with the novel.

Like many other readers, I think it's Pynchon's weakest text -- the
comparison Dave made to Tom Robbins is apt -- and it's not a patch on other
American novels which came out at around the same time -- DeLillo's _White
Noise_, Gaddis' _A Frolic of His Own_, or Updike's _Memories of the Ford
Administration_, for example. Frenesi's betrayal of her friends and family
and the Youth Movement is meant to be the shocking and appalling climax of
the text -- I don't think it quite works for a number of reasons, not least
of which is the problem that the character of Frenesi is far from believable
or sympathetic, but the fact that readers such as yourself try so hard to
resist the stark depiction of Frenesi's betrayals actually renders it a more
effective work than I had previously thought.

best