Crowley as a Pynchon source? // GRGR 1,8 Pointsman and Spectro

[Paul Mackin]

On Dec 19, 2005, at 10:26 PM, Michael Bailey wrote:


>
> x) Pointsman wants a Fox, a human subject, and specifically one of
> Spectro's wards -- but what is the "bus station" passage about?  "You
> have waited in these places into the early mornings, synced-in to the
> on-whitening of the interior..." (V 50, 31-32) -- no I haven't, even
> casting myself as Pointsman, he doesn't seem like a TOTAL pervert?
> this does seem like an opportunity to compare and contrast the "tender
> ministries" of individual pederasts with the way institutions affect
> the weak - how they both insinuate their volition onto their subjects.



>
> But the hospital, and Spectro and Gwenhidwy are bound by a code of
> ethics and animated by an idea that they can really help; where the
> individual pederast, if I'm reading intelligently, does feel helpful,
> but only momentarily ("...for the moment you really are selfless,
> sexless...considering only how to shelter her, you are the Traveler's
> Aid." V 51, 3-4)
>
> I think that the bus station scenario jumps off from the notion of
> Pointsman lusting after the children as experimental subjects - but
> feeling more than intellectual interest ("Those drab undershorts of
> his are full to bursting with need..." V 50, 19-20) - somehow equating
> the sexual predator with the scientific predator.
>
> And the sexual need of Pointsman's intellectual pursuit may be just as
> much of a conditioned response as Slothrop's.

Pynchon may well be TEMPTING us to read pederast here. The  
evacuations of children in '40 and to some  extent again in '44 did  
depend upon public transport, so that some bus stations could well  
have been swarming with children. However this move to give Pointsman  
an extra layer of sinisterness is only a feint, put in for temporary  
effect. In a more sustained fashion,  "children" stands for   
disturbed patients,  casualties of war, innocent ones,  members of  
the preterite. Pointsman's interest is sexual (as well as  
scientific), but not strictly speaking pederastic.  Of course, one  
might argue it was METAPHORICALLY  pederastic. (involving a metonymy  
as well)

Anyway,  that's the  way I've tended to read it.


>
>