TRTR(I.3) Hidden Profits [Epigraph]

[Mark Kohut]

In this regard, I keep remembering an early intellectual mentor
who lived his prime through the times of the 30s---50s...
And the pervasiveness of knowing, arguing, having a perspective
on the depth psychology of Freudianism (as the fountainhead) 
but of course the lesser moon of Jungianism, etc. by the intellectual
set made the consideration of homosexuality part of the dialogue
AND part of even many writers' tropes--as metaphor sometimes for
...uh...not being 'whole'??...or something

'Nother example. I just reread Miss LonelyHearts and that Avon
edition has an afterword essay by Stanley Edgar Hyman (Mr. Shirley
Jackson] that Bloom says is still "most useful".....[in another of his round-up 
book of
recent years

And he writes of latent homosexuality connections between the main
character and others which seem to me to be wrong, but I'm nobody, but
if he's right then why did West even use such, I ask?

(To me, West shows the main character as ironically loveless to more than a few
despite his once Christ-like compassion and he does get a woman pregnant in the 
book and I know that doesn't make a full sexuality, etc....but still)


 


----- Original Message ----
From: David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
To: rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com>
Cc: Erik T. Burns <eburns at gmail.com>; pynchon-l at waste.org
Sent: Fri, April 29, 2011 1:46:34 PM
Subject: Re: TRTR(I.3) Hidden Profits [Epigraph]

It was the overly-stereotypical dialogue of the various members of the
NYC (what I call) Whole Sick Crew that put me off last time I read TR.
It's got to be satire, but not necessarily friendly satire.  It seems
very likely to me that V's Whole Sick Crew was inspired by this one in
TR.  And TRP's depiction of homosexuality in GR isn't too friendly
either.  I think men in their eras were a lot less at ease with
homosexuality in general

David Morris

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:37 PM, rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com> wrote:
> if only to play up those who aren't what they seem. if memory serves,
> The Swede is married but is a flamer
>
> but it's so clearly satirical--it doesn't seem malicious on gaddis' part (i.e. 
>its what these people do that Gaddis mocks not who they are) at least thats how 
>I see it