this is pretty interesting

[rich]

http://bookclubs.barnesandnoble.com/t5/Unabashedly-Bookish/A-Note-for-Pynchon-Readers/ba-p/374573


A Note for Pynchon Readers

08-04-2009 08:58 AM
By Albert_Rolls Blogger Albert_Rolls



Thomas Pynchon's Inherent Vice hit bookstores today, assuming you're
reading this article the day it was posted, and while I have nothing
to say about the new book--since I'm not cool enough to be on any list
that would have gotten me an advance copy and am only now getting
ready to head out to the closest Barnes & Noble to pick one up--I
couldn't let this day in literary history pass without addressing some
Pynchon topic. It is related to the last novel, Against the Day
(2006), though I doubt the issue I raise will receive what anyone
would call justice. What I have in mind is writing something that is
little more than informative, a footnote for others to use to flex
their critical imaginations.



Pynchon is famous for his encyclopedic use of allusions and
references. As a consequence, researchers have put together Pynchon
companions, both on the web and on thin pieces of dead trees, that
provide footnotes that would be too numerous to include in editions of
the actual novels. (In fact, a companion for Inherent Vice is being
launched today by Pynchonwiki.com, which is connected with folks cool
enough for advance copies.) When footnoting other authors' works,
researchers often include biographical information, something that is
almost impossible for those working with Pynchon's books. His ancestor
William Pynchon has been included in the companions to Gravity's
Rainbow for being recast as Tyrone Slothrop's ancestor, but
connections between Pynchon's life and what appears in his books just
aren't known with any certainty. Against the Day is somewhat
different: a line in the novel can be connected to a biographical
moment.



In a 1974 letter to David Shetzline and Mary Beal, parts of which have
become public, Pynchon discusses an upcoming rally for the impeachment
of Richard Nixon and dismisses its value. The comment that follows
suggests that he is disappointed that such rallies had become little
more than events at which to socialize: "Maybe I am wrong not to show
up, after all think of all that great neurotic  p*ssy[1] that always
shows up at things like -- oh, aww, gee Mary, I'm sorry! I meant
'vagina,' of course! -- like that, and all the biggies who'll be
there. . . ." Correcting himself by writing that he meant "vagina"
does not change the tenor of the comment, but Pynchon may be doing
something besides being a boorish man. In the context, replacing the
offensive "p*ssy" with the PC "vagina" seems analogous to changing the
nightclub scene with the political-rally scene, at least if going to a
rally is done simply for the purpose of meeting women and seeing
celebrities, the latter of which Pynchon certainly could have done in
a more personal setting if he were impressed by celebrities. It is
Pynchon's own celebrity status, in fact, that makes the passage seem a
satiric comment on the fashionably leftist.



Whatever his intent in the letter, Pynchon must have liked his joke,
for he uses it in Against the Day. The Chums of Chance, travelling
under the sand on Captain Toadflax's "subdesertine frigate Saksaul,"
listen to Toadfax discourse on the doctrine of the Manichæans. He
explains, "Everything that you appreciate with your senses, all there
is in the given world to hold dear," including "the touch of a lover"
and "desirable strangers," are evil for the Manichæan. "'But it's
everything that matters,' protested Chick Counterfly." Suckling then
observes, "That's the choice? Light or p*ssy? What kind of choice is
that?" Lindsay, the Chums of Chance member who objects to "informality
of speech," protests, and Suckling corrects himself: "Sorry Lindsay. I
meant 'vagina,' of course."



Lacking the context of the letter, Suckling's dialogue is more likely
to appear to be that of a boorish male. He doesn't even seem to be
aware that he should know better. After all, it is the informality
that is likely behind Lindsay's objections, not the sexist tenor of
the comment, so Suckling is just being a formal boor. (Lindsay just
says "Suckling!" but his thing is correcting bad language.) My
question, one I won't answer here (hence my concern that I am not
doing the issue justice), is: should the way the joke seems to be used
in the letter change the way we read it in the novel, or vice versa?
"Let the reader decide, let the reader beware. Good luck."