IVIV (12): Yakkin' Broads

[Mark Kohut]

More depth.......if all around Doc are the 'yakkin broads' kind of males are they more like The Whole Sick Crew, so to speak, around

Doc as a kind of feminist male, thinking of women's pleasure a lot? Doc eats Vs happily?.........Doc as the female-value-centered Pynchon? 

And,I want to just sign off on Laura's observation that 
in real life in 1970, there was a lot more fellatio (in general) than cunnilingus I would generalize----but I was almost NEVER very close to any scene like IV's California, the Haight, etc. ('cepting Yonge street in Canada, 66-67) 

--- On Sun, 11/1/09, kelber at mindspring.com <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:

> From: kelber at mindspring.com <kelber at mindspring.com>
> Subject: Re: IVIV (12): Yakkin' Broads
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Date: Sunday, November 1, 2009, 12:36 PM
> Assuming Doc to be the stand-in for
> Pynchon as at least the viewpoint of the narrator, Pynchon
> doesn't give Doc the "yakkin' broads" dialogue that some
> (though not all)of the other male characters display. 
> Then, too, there's an odd (and completely unrealistic)
> pussy-centric, female-pleasure focus to a lot of the sexual
> goings on.  Do we really believe that in the back seat
> of the car Denis is going down on Jade, rather than vice
> versa?  Was that really what car-sex was all about back
> then (or today?).  All of this seems to be Pynchon's
> way of apologizing for the male-pleasure focus of the Free
> Love culture.
> 
> Laura
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com>
> 
> >
> >Broad---groan---intelligent criticism of IV that hits
> home (to me) in judging this book's lasting value or place
> (in TRP's oeuvre or in lit history).....
> >
> >I just want to add, Is this one reason why so many
> almost-all-male reviewers liked this book so much? 
> >
> >My only attempt at a discussion beyond what Laura's
> layers reveal is to ask: could TRP be (partly) portraying
> that guy he (partly) apologized for being in Slow
> Learner?  
> >
> >--- On Sun, 11/1/09, kelber at mindspring.com
> <kelber at mindspring.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: kelber at mindspring.com
> <kelber at mindspring.com>
> >> Subject: IVIV (12): Yakkin' Broads
> >> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> >> Date: Sunday, November 1, 2009, 11:50 AM
> >> p. 197 – "'These broads are all
> >> itchin to talk, because nobody in their home life
> wants to
> >> hear anything they have to say.  Sit still for
> two
> >> seconds, and they’ll be yakkin your ear off.'"
> >> 
> >> Layer one:  an accurate portrayal of the lives
> of
> >> housewives at the dawn of the resurgence of
> activist
> >> feminism.
> >> 
> >> Layer two:  an accurate portrayal of a
> misogynist
> >> viewpoint of the day.  Here's the problem,
> >> though.  There's nothing historical about the
> >> comment.  Bill Maher, whose viewpoints are often
> worth
> >> listening to, has a standard misogynist riff
> running through
> >> his routines -- being driven crazy by yakking
> females is a
> >> big part of this.  He's mostly a progressive, and
> it
> >> only gets worse as you move rightward.  The image
> of
> >> women in films, TV and the news is as bad or even
> worse than
> >> it's ever been.
> >> 
> >> Layer three:  Pynchon's depiction of women in
> >> IV.  Oedipa Maas in COL49, back there in 1965
> >> California, is a housewife, a Young Republican,
> but she's
> >> logical and intelligent  -- the essence of
> >> rationality.  Pynchon wrote that book prior to
> the time
> >> he depicts in IV.  Assuming IV to be a mix of the
> life
> >> and attitudes of LA-1970 Pynchon and the current
> NYC-2009
> >> Pynchon-the-Elder/Family Man, well, where's Oedipa
> or anyone
> >> like her?  Sure, the male characters are all
> buffoonish
> >> – but we never forget who's in the White House,
> the CIA,
> >> the Police Force, the Golden Fang.  Amidst the
> >> housewives, the stewardii and bimbettes only two
> women
> >> modestly stand out: Sortilege, the flaky New Ager,
> who
> >> stands out by virtue of having a steady boyfriend
> so that
> >> she's not actively fucking everyone in sight; and
> Penny,
> >> who's an ADA (sexually taken with Doc and
> certainly willing
> >> to, at least metaphorically, put out for the
> FBI).  The
> >> reality is that a woman with Penny's job back in
> early 1970,
> >> wo!
> >>  uld have been relentlessly discriminated
> against and
> >> harassed, relegated to chicken-shit assignments,
> etc. 
> >> Pynchon gives a very inaccurate, anachronistic
> portrayal of
> >> her situation.  
> >> 
> >> The endless parade of mini-skirted bimbos starts
> to get
> >> really boring after a while.  There's really zero
> even
> >> knee-jerk social commentary to be gleaned from it
> about
> >> "(sob) the oppression of women."  For those of
> you
> >> who've seen the TV show Madmen, about the
> advertising
> >> business in the early '60s, the show does a
> helluva better
> >> job of showing us the roots of the rebirth of
> feminism in
> >> the 70s.  Assuming then, that social commentary
> is off
> >> the table, why is TRP depicting women this way in
> IV? 
> >> To paraphrase (don't have the book handy) his
> description of
> >> a racy pinball machine in GR:  "A little
> offensive to
> >> the ladies, but all in good fun."
> >> 
> >> Laura
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
>