IVIV (8): Downstairs Eddie

[Michael Bailey]

alice wellintown wrote:
>
> Maybe he can, but he's not trying to "do nice" here.  Leo and Elmina
> are comic figures (TV characters who imitate film characters who
> imitate fiction characters who imitate real Great Depression
> gangsters, Bonnie and Clyde)  ) and are subjected to satire.
>

even in GR, even in TSI, parent-child bonds are praised as a solid thing
in the ontology.  Sure, parent-child bondage is ridiculed, and family S&M
is held up as an alternative to the State (actually a pretty good idea),
so forth, but Slothrop's old man
telling him about the winter birds - that's not badinage or satire,
it's a sweet moment.

The kids in TSI have to abandon the "colored" kid they imagined but he
goes into a
wonderful exile, and he was imaginary anyway, right, so the fact that these
kids love their parents isn't satire, it's the reason they don't throw sodium
in the reservoir or whatever and I rather strongly feel that's meant
to be exemplary.

Why would he bring Leo and Elmina in to just satirize them?

This is the kind of frustration I used to get in Lit class when the prof
would insist on making stuff symbolic.  "we were never that interested
in Slothrop qua Slothrop..."
It's like starting a motorcycle, the kick comes from representation and story,
once you've got the motor cranking then the symbolism (if symbolism
you must have) starts rolling.  It won't
go anywhere without you kickstart it (electric starters on motorbikes are part
of the decky-dance)   imho...