BtZ42 Section six. PP 38-42 (miller edition)

[Monte Davis]

Good question. I read these as transient exasperation -- that we're
intended to come down on the side of "continuing to try makes him brave,"
albeit with some ambivalence. There's a twist of wry reverse
self-congratulation ("I care too much for this damn job"). I don't take
seriously that he'd be more content as a cog in the machine.

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Mark Sacha <msacha1121 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry if this has been mentioned already, playing catchup.
>
> But does anyone find it strange that Roger would prefer to work "in fire
> control, or graphing Standardized Kill Rates Per Ton for the bomber
> groups", all that McNamara-type number crunching to make death more
> efficient, than the work he does at TWV? "this thankless meddling into the
> affairs of invulnerable Death." I'm reading it that he maybe objects to the
> intrusive nature of all the psychic business, concerned not with Death's
> fact but its nature. Irony aside, it almost seems as if he's saying (and
> this is what I can't parse) the former would put him outside of death's
> employ.
>
> This is my second read, but I was a much worse reader during my first, so
> it all feels pretty fresh. Thus my recollection of TWV is hazy at best.
>
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Tracing P's women from Jessica thru the fascist-loving ones would be an
>> interesting exercise.
>>
>> My only perspective here is to say Scorpia and Jessica are what are often
>> referred to as 'tough" women regarding love. They can fall, be in it and
>> NOT get hurt )usual meaning of 'tough' in this regard, I think).
>>
>> Their lovers are soft as boys. They fall hard. It hurts. They never
>> forget; they never get over it (at least Roger won't, he sez fer sure)
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 9:44 AM, <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Even with the Hollywood meet-cute aspects, it's hard not to take the
>>> romance - They're in love - at face value. Jessica is never developed much
>>> as a character, which counters the trend in Hollywood rom-coms of the 30s
>>> and 40s (the skirt-lifting hitchhike is a trope used in It Happened One
>>> Night. And maybe Sullivan's Travels?) But later in the book she's recast as
>>> the cold-hearted status-husband-seeking Bitch (it's hinted at in the seance
>>> scene, but dropped in this and the following Roger-Jessica scenes).
>>>
>>> Did Pynchon have it planned all along? Hard to say. Maybe he has her
>>> turn in the Counterforce section of the book just to emphasize what Roger
>>> is up against. At any rate, between being undeveloped first, and then
>>> bitchified, she's one of the least likable of the not strictly villainous
>>> (Gerda) female characters in the book. It seems, possibly, that she's the
>>> foremother of all of Pynchon's later fascist-loving women.
>>>
>>> Laura
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> >From: Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>> >Sent: Apr 20, 2016 9:24 AM
>>> >To: John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com>
>>> >Cc: P-list <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>> >Subject: Re: BtZ42 Section six. PP 38-42 (miller edition)
>>> >
>>> >But my romantic reading does have a problem w P's clear Hollywood Rom
>>> Com text. Where do we come down on this? For me, it is in the context of
>>> some kind of real lasting love organically happening because of peacetime
>>> normal courtships but...milages vary.
>>> >
>>> >Sent from my iPhone
>>> >
>>> >On Apr 20, 2016, at 7:40 AM, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> When I first read this part of GR in my 20s I thought Roger and
>>> >> Jessica were the kind of fictional couple meant to offer hope or at
>>> >> least some optimism for the reader. "They are in love. Fuck the war."
>>> >> That now seems to me more ironic. Hollywood love is not an effective
>>> >> anti-war strategy. Connect with AN ARMY OF LOVERS CAN BE BEATEN,
>>> >> later. Or how Pirate, who we might figure is our hero at first,
>>> >> becomes so sexually/politically manipulable so quickly. How so many of
>>> >> these players are sexual marionettes!
>>> >>
>>> >> I'm not arguing that Pynchon is arguing anything, but read in the
>>> >> light of 1970s free love and the political shit going on and the
>>> >> uneasy relationships between the sexual revolution and feminism and I
>>> >> feel this whole thread of the novel records a pulse we have yet to
>>> >> gauge.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>> Not much happens, but a fair amount gets stated (framed). Roger &
>>> Jessica are driving east to meet Pointsman and be part of his dognapping
>>> scheme. But they "want to be together, in bed, at rest, in love" ( tied up
>>> at the end of the section with another scene of being together, "touches
>>> and looks, smiles together, curses for parting".   This ending with the
>>> memorable "they are in love. Fuck the war". )
>>> >>> We get the flashback story of their cute meet. Busted bike, slip and
>>> thighs showing, rom com initial put downs (P has signaled the Hollywood
>>> lensing) bike smashed and she's " in his power."
>>> >>> UTTERLY. (But Roger knows she isn't)
>>> >>> Then a rocket lands. The War intrudes.
>>> >>> We learn more about Roger ( which we will get to elsewhere)
>>> >>> Then we are with First Responders and the bombed.
>>> >>> "War's state"
>>> >>> Roger is part of The White Visitation and The Home Front
>>> is..."fiction and a lie".
>>> >>> Fuck the war.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Sent from my iPhone-
>>> >>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>> >-
>>> >Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20160427/7a17a021/attachment.html>