Can Pynchon write (yet)?

[bekah]

Perhaps it depends on your definition of misogyny.   I didn't read GR 
until a couple years ago (2004?)  and I found it to be somewhat 
sexist if not outright misogynistic.    It was published in the early 
70s and with all the boomers finding each other's bodies,  but with 
men still having all power - well - read Drop City (Boyle). 
Remember "Charlie's Angels?"   Women were for sex,  men were for the 
plot and the power and the glory and the rocket launching.  After the 
war.  a good woman (Jennifer)  will  "grace the life"  of some man 
who will put her in a suburb on a pedestal made of diapers and dirty 
dishes.  (I read GR after Vineland,  CoL49 and Mason & Dixon.)

I'm not sure if Pynchon matured or if contemporary readers are less 
tolerant of these attitudes.  Women are no longer thought to be 
basically intended and designed for sex and homemaking.

The Crying of Lot 49 more than made up for any  perceived sexism in 
GR -  Oedipa never did fit the Tupperware and Jello mold.    Vineland 
was lovely with Prairie and Frenesi being pretty active in many ways. 
The few women in    Mason & Dixon were like  goddesses (Transit of 
Venus scenes).      Now I figure we're in for something which 
reflects a more 21st century attitude toward women.

Bekah



At 3:20 PM -0500 11/4/06, kelber at mindspring.com wrote:
>I don't find any misogyny in P's writing.  His female characters are 
>no flatter than his male characters.  The hallmarks of myisogyny: 
>outright diatribes against women, women introduced purely as love 
>interest ("the girl"), or obviously male characters (gun-toting , 
>cigar-chomping chief of police) presented as female for tokenism or 
>yuks; all of these are absent in Pynchon.
>
>Laura
>
>PS- re: Orson Welles comparisons, M&D might be his Third Man or 
>Magnificent Ambersons.  Touch of Evil is way overrated: might be 
>compared to VL or SL.  Of course this is just my (I assume) minority 
>opinion.
>
>  >From: Paul Nightingale <isread at btopenworld.com>
>
>>
>>Another point about GR, if you want to talk about weaknesses. It is a huge
>>achievement, certainly, for someone who had yet to hit 40; but in some
>>respects (there goes that handy little phrase again) the achievement is
>>flawed. It is a young man's novel, with elements of misogyny (P as a man of
>>his times), and a brash (and I would offer conscious) attempt to write the
>>ultimate novel. On every page he seems to be saying: Follow this! The
>>writing is calculated (these are all very impressionistic statements--no
>>scientific measurement here, folks) in a way that is absent from both VL and
>  >M&D.
>>
>>Reading GR I've always remembered something one of my film teachers said. I
>>asked him if Citizen Kane was the greatest film ever made. He said it might
>>be the most brilliant film ever made, but not the greatest. Being pretty
>>stupid at the time I didn't understand him for at least five seconds.
>>Welles, like P, set out to have the last word: Follow this! I feel the same
>>way about GR, and GR is to M&D as CK is to Touch of Evil.
>>
>>
>>