GR - How old is Bianca? Or: Did Sachsa really die in 1930?

Fri Jan 8 15:26:50 CST 2016

I like Molly Hite's essay,  "Fun Actually Was Becoming Quite Subversive":
Herbert Marcuse, the Yippies, and the Value System of "Gravity's Rainbow"
too.

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Monte Davis <montedavis49 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Per Herman and Weisenburger, the interplay of domination and freedom is
> central to GR, maybe to most of the Pynchon canon. I'm inclined to read
> Slothrop & Bianca less as pedophilia in itself than as another variation in
> the book's taxonomy of explicitly or implicitly S&M-oriented sexuality --
> "perversions" that both play out existing power relationships and are
> revolutionary in the sense of Norman O. Brown and Marcuse. See Douglas
> Lannarks's handy compendium:
>
> http://gravitys-rainbow.pynchonwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=LOVE
>
> The Shirley Temple angle -- precociously talented, coy, silver-screen
> glamorous -- is surely relevant. GR has many examples of Slothrop's US pop
> culture shadowing tendencies we'd rather think of as decadent European:
> just how different is Margherita's corrupt stage-mothering from 20th
> Century Fox's evolution of the Shirley Temple brand? It's not endorsing or
> excusing the abuser / pedophile / rapist -- either "She's asking for it" or
> "I couldn't help myself" -- to suggest that Bianca, Slothrop, and "the
> penis he thought was his own" have been programmed for this by commercial
> mass culture as much as by pornography.
>
> I'll let Dali have the last word:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Temple,_The_Youngest,_Most_Sacred_Monster_of_the_Cinema_in_Her_Time
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I think that by the time I got this far into the book I had lost any
>> sense of irreversible reality, by which I mean the happenings were like in
>> a dream or a computer simulation and all you needed to do to make them  not
>> so was wake up or turn off the switch.  Which is to say, no emphathy
>> with or sympathy for was meaningful.
>>
>> Earlier in the book I had of course emphathized with good guy Slothrop.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> John,
>>>
>>> Emerson said that almost everything readers/playgoers say about
>>> Shakespeare is true
>>> because his work is almost as rich as life.
>>>
>>> I think analogously that GR is full of such richness that ambiguous
>>> meanings reside
>>> within it. But, I can't believe it is about that. It has a vision of
>>> life, of history that, rich as it is
>>> is NOT just anything one might think it is. Read some people who don't
>>> 'get' it, who don't like
>>> it, who get out of it stupid stuff...like the Pulitzer Committee, Ish,
>>> no the Nobel as you momentarily
>>> forgot.
>>> and, my all-purpose morning response to you Steve, we cannot overlook
>>> "the moral' in the book, very broadly understood.
>>> I suggest no great book is without a vision of life, humanity, which
>>> as ways of being are necessarily
>>> moral.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 2:23 AM, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > I think all stances posited here are valid - GR to me is mainly about
>>> > the ways we attempt to understand the world and the systems we develop
>>> > to frame that understanding. So a microscopic examination of the text
>>> > is invited by text itself, as is a free-floating, associative reading,
>>> > and a critical-paranoid reading, and a reading that measures
>>> > everything along scientific-rationalist grounds, etc etc.
>>> >
>>> > I don't even think the book is expecting us to question why we favour
>>> > one mode of reading over others; but because no one mode is enough to
>>> > make sense of this gargantuan thing, we necessarily meet the limits of
>>> > our standard interpretive repertoire. Maybe have to start playing with
>>> > some new ones.
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Robert Mahnke <rpmahnke at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> "While I wouldn't discourage the kind of close examination of dates
>>> and the
>>> >> like that Kraft and others have done, it hardly proves anything. And
>>> what's
>>> >> the point anyway? it doesn't much matter unless the point is to
>>> somehow
>>> >> defend the character, which seem ridiculous to me, or defend the
>>> author
>>> >> which seems even more ridiculous."
>>> >>
>>> >> I don't get this at all.  The point is to understand and make sense
>>> of the
>>> >> text.  If you don't want to encourage a close examination of what
>>> Pynchon
>>> >> wrote, why bother reading him at all?
>>> >>
>>> >> I really appreciated Laura's initial post and this whole thread --
>>> thanks to
>>> >> all.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 1:30 PM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> A good point, Paul.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I want to add that the narrative, through free indirect style is
>>> >>> constantly projecting and merging cinematic fantasies with much
>>> madness that
>>> >>> is orgasmic sense. The cinematic periods and the lives of the
>>> characters,
>>> >>> and your life too, dear reader, are palimpsested and projected in the
>>> >>> theater/theatre.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The movies had a profound impact on the culture, on the psychology,
>>> on the
>>> >>> behaviors, attitudes, sexual fantasies, proclivities of the
>>> populations.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> While I wouldn't discourage the kind of close examination of dates
>>> and the
>>> >>> like that Kraft and others have done, it hardly proves anything. And
>>> what's
>>> >>> the point anyway? it doesn't much matter unless the point is to
>>> somehow
>>> >>> defend the character, which seem ridiculous to me, or defend the
>>> author
>>> >>> which seems even more ridiculous.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Is it real or is it reel? It's both and that is the beauty in it. If
>>> I
>>> >>> have to put up with a girl fucking a man twice her age, I'm buying a
>>> ticket
>>> >>> and I'm not walking out because I sat through a woman shitting in
>>> am man's
>>> >>> mouth.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> The whole of GR is on the one hand quite meticulously organized and
>>> >>>> analyzable as P scholars have shown and on the other hand a complete
>>> >>>> phantasmagoria in which nothing is fixed. That includes Bianca's
>>> age, Ilse's
>>> >>>> continuing existence, carbon and silicon bonding, the conditioned
>>> reflex,
>>> >>>> rocket science, and the sensibilities of moral right thinking
>>> readers.  Even
>>> >>>> the classic laws of logic are not inviolate.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Perry Noid <coolwithdoc at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Maybe only tangentially related so let's call it an aside: still
>>> >>>>> engrossed by Bolaño here and the infamous fourth chapter. Nearing
>>> the end,
>>> >>>>> the part where the congresswoman hires the detective to find her
>>> missing
>>> >>>>> friend. The detective tells her that he doesn't want her to waste
>>> her time,
>>> >>>>> that her friend is "more or less dead." But either you are dead or
>>> you are
>>> >>>>> alive sez the congresswoman, there is no "more or less dead." But
>>> in Mexico,
>>> >>>>> sez the detective, you can be "more or less dead."
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> The book is continuing to get better and better, and this chapter
>>> I was
>>> >>>>> turned off slightly by at the beginning is actually incredible. Is
>>> not just
>>> >>>>> a "clinical catalogue" of death as I originally thought. There is
>>> an
>>> >>>>> enormous beating heart in the middle of it.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> On Thursday, January 7, 2016, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> I know Slothrop doesn't actually die, just disappears.  Is
>>> scattered
>>> >>>>>> (in the text)....which
>>> >>>>>> is, ambiguously, like death and yet not death, right?
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> it is what I meant by 'transcends' his mortal coil anyway, so
>>> just to
>>> >>>>>> make myself clearer.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> And, by the way, My writing "like death and yet not death" reminds
>>> >>>>>> of the excluded middle notion. Or Schrodinger's cat. That
>>> >>>>>> Pynchon.......
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >>>>>> >>
>>> >>>>>> >> That great Ambiguity of Pynchon...both in some senses?
>>> >>>>>> >> a Hounded Victim who 'transcends' his mortal coil of damaged
>>> >>>>>> >> relationships? So, a release?
>>> >>>>>> >> (but NOT quite like Cyprian imho, since
>>> >>>>>> >> Cyprian lives on)
>>> >>>>>> >>
>>> >>>>>> >>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Keith Davis <kbob42 at gmail.com
>>> >
>>> >>>>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>> >>> Loses his humanity, or transcends it? Like Cyprian?
>>> >>>>>> >>>
>>> >>>>>> >>> Www.innergroovemusic.com
>>> >>>>>> >>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>> On Jan 7, 2016, at 7:06 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com
>>> >
>>> >>>>>> >>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>> I think we---I---must rethink Slothrop. I knew, ( or figured
>>> I
>>> >>>>>> >>>> knew)
>>> >>>>>> >>>> first read, no one got laid that much by willing adult
>>> British
>>> >>>>>> >>>> girls,
>>> >>>>>> >>>> so I rendered him
>>> >>>>>> >>>> symbolic as much as related to reality. Even first read, we
>>> all
>>> >>>>>> >>>> knew
>>> >>>>>> >>>> this novel wasn't 'realistic' in any normal meaning of that
>>> term.
>>> >>>>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>> We know he is damaged, poignantly so and sympathetically in
>>> the
>>> >>>>>> >>>> novel
>>> >>>>>> >>>> (in some ways). Now, maybe more totally than I have admitted.
>>> >>>>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>> Being one with one's own cock is NOT a positive thing in a
>>> novel
>>> >>>>>> >>>> in which Norman O. Brown's Life against Death and a
>>> 'polymorphous
>>> >>>>>> >>>> perversity' are deep influences, but I might not have
>>> thought that
>>> >>>>>> >>>> until later readings and awareness of the influence. (see
>>> below on
>>> >>>>>> >>>> alternate title, though)
>>> >>>>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>> For what it is worth, as I've mentioned, I had read Lolita
>>> and
>>> >>>>>> >>>> Life
>>> >>>>>> >>>> Against Death before I read GR (not that I connected Brown
>>> much)
>>> >>>>>> >>>> but I did believe, want to believe, that Pynchon had a deeper
>>> >>>>>> >>>> perspective
>>> >>>>>> >>>> on 'free love'---if that is what we can call Slothrop's luck
>>> with
>>> >>>>>> >>>> willing women.
>>> >>>>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>> When I first heard of the alternate title, Mindless
>>> Pleasures I
>>> >>>>>> >>>> WAS SURE
>>> >>>>>> >>>> it satirized Slothrop as much as anything in the novel.
>>> >>>>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>> So, I still think Pynchon is being more Swiftian than I have
>>> >>>>>> >>>> thought,
>>> >>>>>> >>>> with Bianca.
>>> >>>>>> >>>> I still think P was ABSOLUTELY aware this fictional creation
>>> was
>>> >>>>>> >>>> another
>>> >>>>>> >>>> symbol of sick sex such as the novel is full of, as much,
>>> because,
>>> >>>>>> >>>> he
>>> >>>>>> >>>> was a victim.
>>> >>>>>> >>>> Another turn of the base fantasy
>>> >>>>>> >>>> sex life in the West screw, so to pun. (Sometimes acted upon
>>> IRL).
>>> >>>>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>> Maybe another reason he disappears? that is, loses his
>>> humanity,
>>> >>>>>> >>>> so to speak?
>>> >>>>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 9:26 PM,  <kelber at mindspring.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I do think that the reader's mind rebels against thinking
>>> that
>>> >>>>>> >>>>> our good-guy would have sex with a 12-year-old. We can
>>> handle it only by
>>> >>>>>> >>>>> equivocating "she's really older, she just looks 11 or 12
>>> to Slothrop" (not
>>> >>>>>> >>>>> much of a mitigation, as many have pointed out); or by
>>> putting a
>>> >>>>>> >>>>> metaphorical or magical realism spin on it (I think that's
>>> what I did the
>>> >>>>>> >>>>> first time I read it); or by proving that she's older and
>>> that Slothrop must
>>> >>>>>> >>>>> secretly realize that she's older, and be playing along.
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>> My first reaction when I read it was that this was a damaged
>>> >>>>>> >>>>> child (Slothrop, via Imipolex) inflicting damage on another
>>> damaged child -
>>> >>>>>> >>>>> a kind of cascading fallout. And that the scene was somehow
>>> pre-invisioning,
>>> >>>>>> >>>>> just as his Imipolex-sensitized penis anticipated where the
>>> V2s would fall,
>>> >>>>>> >>>>> the later event of Gottfried with his Imipolex shroud,
>>> trapped in the rocket
>>> >>>>>> >>>>> (which foreshadows the Cold War terror of nuclear weapons
>>> falling on us,
>>> >>>>>> >>>>> damaging our genetic and planetary future).
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>> But I can also imagine that to Pynchon, in his early 20s,
>>> back in
>>> >>>>>> >>>>> the early 1970s, before fatherhood was anywhere close to
>>> being a gleam in
>>> >>>>>> >>>>> his eye, the horrors of child abuse were much more
>>> theoretical and somewhat
>>> >>>>>> >>>>> less horrific than they would appear to him in the present
>>> day, at his
>>> >>>>>> >>>>> current age. And I can go a step further and ponder the
>>> unspeakable and
>>> >>>>>> >>>>> unknowable - whether Pynchon has a secret kink or
>>> predilection for underaged
>>> >>>>>> >>>>> girls (along with Lewis Carroll, Salinger, Woody Allen, and
>>> Polanski, to
>>> >>>>>> >>>>> name just a few). I'm able to separate the artist from the
>>> creep or ghoul,
>>> >>>>>> >>>>> though many are not.
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Laura
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent: Jan 6, 2016 5:13 PM
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> To: kelber <kelber at mindspring.com>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Cc: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Subject: Re: GR - How old is Bianca? Or: Did Sachsa really
>>> die
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> in 1930?
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> wow...an analysis to go deep into....I will
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> BUT, I will just say that even the first time I read it, I
>>> did
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> think
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Slothrop was "only" saying she 'looked' that age.
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But I had read Lolita first....and I did not want to
>>> believe the
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 'good guy'
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Slothrop was a pedophile.....I did think P wanted to
>>> present
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> this sickness
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> in this way-----males wanted often much younger women.....I
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> could not
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> buy it as realistic therefore, of course, long before I had
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> heard of
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> hysterical or magical realism..
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> but I must reread and think more...
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Just sayin'
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:40 PM,  <kelber at mindspring.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I've been trying to parse this since that Nabokov
>>> discussion
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> couple-three
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> weeks ago. I'm using my Penguin 2006 version page
>>> numbers, but
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> the
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> PynchonWiki uses a different version (Vintage, I think):
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> During my readings of GR, I've always taken it at face
>>> value
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> that Bianca is
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 11 or 12 when Slothrop has sex with her: "He gets a
>>> glimpse of
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Margherita
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> and her daughter, but there is a density of orgy-goers
>>> around
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> them that
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> keeps him at a distance. He knows he's vulnerable, more
>>> than he
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> should be,
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> to pretty little girls, so he reckons it's just as well,
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> because that
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Bianca's a knockout, all right: 11 or 12, dark and lovely
>>> …"
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> [Penguin, p.
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 470-471].
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> But John Krafft makes this argument (see PynchonWiki):
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> http://gravitys-rainbow.pynchonwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Bianca
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> How old IS Bianca?
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Slothrop thinks, "Bianca's a knockout, alright: 11 or 12,
>>> dark
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> and lovely
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> [...]" (p.463), but how old is Bianca, really? Well ...
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Bianca is conceived during the filming of Alpdrücken ("I
>>> think
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Bianca is
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> [Schlepzig's] child. She was conceived while we were
>>> filming
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> this." - p.395)
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Ilse was conceived after Franz Pökler saw Alpdrücken ("he
>>> knew
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> that had to
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> be the night, Alpdrücken night, that Ilse was conceived."
>>> -
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> p.397)
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Leni had already given birth to Ilse when she was seeing
>>> Peter
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Sachsa, e.g.
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> "Ilse is awake, and crying. [...] They ought to try Peter
>>> after
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> all. He'll
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> have milk." (p.163); and Sachsa is killed during a street
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> action in 1930
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> ("Taken forcibly over in 1930 by a blow from a police
>>> truncheon
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> [...]" -
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> p.152)
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Placing Bianca's conception, say, 6 months to a year
>>> before
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Ilse's
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> (depending on how long it took for Alpdrücken to reach the
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> theatres and how
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> long it took Franz Pökler to go see it), Bianca's birth
>>> would
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> have been in
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 1928 or 1929.
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Slothrop meets Bianca aboard the Anubis in 1945.
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thus Bianca must be 16 or 17, yes? (Thanks to John M.
>>> Krafft
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> and to Bernard
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Duyfhuizen, of Pynchon Notes, for the above sleuthing.)
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> There's a clear sequence of events: Bianca conceived,
>>> then Ilse
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> is
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> conceived, then, when Ilse is at least a year or so old,
>>> Peter
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Sachsa dies.
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> And, in a book that doesn't have too many direct
>>> references to
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> the date (in
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> favor of indirect references via historical events like
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hirohsima, etc.),
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> we're given the date of his death: 1930. Case closed?
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Here are some of my objections to Krafft's time-line:
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Pynchon's intentions with the Slothrop-Bianca
>>> sequence: To
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> me, this
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> sequence seems very much about Slothrop, pushing 30
>>> [Penguin,
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> p. 471] having
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> sex with a very underage girl. She looks to him as if
>>> she's 11
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> or 12. Does
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Pynchon expect the reader to parse through the book, come
>>> up
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> with the
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> above-mentioned time line and think, "Ah, silly Slothrop,
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> you're not the
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> creep you think you are for lusting after such a little
>>> girl.
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> She's actually
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 16 or 17."?  If Bianca is 16 or 17, the ( or "a" )
>>> subtext of
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> the scene
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> would be Slothrop thinking he's having sex with a
>>> much-younger
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> girl, or
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Slothrop and Bianca role-playing that she's a much-younger
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> girl. This isn't
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> impossible. Earlier, at the beginning of the orgy
>>> sequence,
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Margherita and
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Bianca are role-playing that she's a Shirley Temple-aged
>>> tot
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> who deserves a
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> good spanking.
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> But it just seems unlikely to me that Pynchon would
>>> expect the
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> reader to
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> read the text this way - certainly not at first reading,
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> anyway. So he must
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> have, at minimum, been aware that readers would take the
>>> 11 or
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 12 age as a
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> given. Other evidence: Stefania, described as "maybe 18"
>>> says:
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> "While they
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> were away, they left Bianca with us, at Bydgoszcz. She
>>> has her
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> bitchy
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> moments, but she's really a charming child." [Penguin, p.
>>> 469].
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Doesn't
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> sound like she's discussing a girl near her own age.
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> In the next section, when the sex scene occurs, Slothrop
>>> is
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> dreaming of the
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> White Rabbit from Alice in Wonderland. A possible
>>> reference to
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Lewis
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Carroll's alleged infatuation with Alice Liddell? Carroll
>>> broke
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> abruptly
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> with the Liddell family when Alice was 11. And, of course,
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> there's that
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> possible connection to 12-year-old Lolita.
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On p. 477, Bianca's breasts are described as
>>> "pre-subdeb." The
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Sub-debs were
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> some sort of sorority for high-school girls back in the
>>> day.
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Also: OK, a whole stream of thought: Margherita the
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> child-murderer whom
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Bianca must be protected from; Imipolex and Margherita,
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Imipolex and
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Weissmann, Imipolex and Slothrop, Imipolex and Gottfried;
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Pokler, never sure
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> of his daughter Ilse, but fantasizing about sex with her;
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Bianca and Ilse,
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> their conceptions linked; Gottfried in the rocket,
>>> Slothrop
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> inside his own
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> cock while having sex with Bianca ...
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> So many chemical-rocket-abused kids connections. There
>>> are I
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> simply can't
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> believe that Pynchon expects us to think that Bianca is
>>> really
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 16 or 17.
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. But damned, there is that 1930 date! Another time
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> discrepancy:
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Franz Pokler meets Mondaugen (Penguin, p. 164) right after
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> observing a
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> failed rocket test. This sequence starts two pages
>>> earlier.
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Leni is pregnant
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> with Ilse. Franz is earning a living doing odd jobs, and
>>> on
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> this day he's
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> been pasting movie posters on walls (for a Max Schlepzig
>>> film).
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On the next
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> page, he's wandered into the Reinickendorf neighborhood,
>>> where
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> he then
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> observes a failed rocket test, after which he looks up
>>> and sees
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Mondaugen
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> (whom he went to technical college - Technische
>>> Hochschule -
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> with 7 or 8
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> years earlier).
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Here's the description of the static rocket test: "But the
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> light grew
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> brighter, and the watching figures suddenly started
>>> dropping
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> for cover as
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> the rocket now gave a sputtering roar, a long burst,
>>> voices
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> screaming get
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> down and he hit the dirt just as the silver thing blew
>>> apart …"
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> This had to be based on this incident, the static test of
>>> a
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Mirak rocket at
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> the Reinickendorf facility in May, 1931:
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> "In May 1931 Riedel improvised a rocket, using the thrust
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> chamber developed
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> for the Mirak, fed by two long tanks containing liquid
>>> oxygen
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> and gasoline,
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> which would form guiding sticks for the forward-mounted
>>> engine.
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> The
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> lashed-together rocket rises to 20 m on its first 'static'
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> test. On 14 May a
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> flight-weight version of Riedel's 'flying test stand'
>>> takes off
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> into a
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> looping trajectory, sending the VfR experimenters running
>>> for
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> cover, but
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> reaching 60 m altitude in the process."
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/mirak.htm
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> By this reckoning, Ilse is born in 1931, after Sachsa's
>>> death.
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> This birth
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> date, assuming she was conceived months (at minimum) after
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Bianca, still
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> makes Bianca about 14 years old at the time Slothrop has
>>> sex
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> with her. So is
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Sachsa alive or dead when Ilse is born? Is Pynchon
>>> positing a
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> fictional
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> rocket test that took place in 1929 or so? Possibly. But
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Pynchon really did
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> his homework on the history of the German rocket program
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> (before and after
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> the Nazis took over). Would he really torture his
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> carefully-researched facts
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> just to fit them to Sachsa's 1930 death? There's
>>> absolutely no
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> significant
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> reason that I can find that Sachsa needs to have died in
>>> 1930.
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Could Pynchon
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> have made a careless mistake? Or maybe Sachsa didn't
>>> actually
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> die in 1930?
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> He's introduced as a ghost-medium during the 1945 seance
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> [Penguin, p. 154],
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> and is described as having been "forcibly taken over in
>>> 1930 by
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> a blow from
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> a police truncheon." Could "taken over" mean that he
>>> gained his
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> insights
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> into the "other side."? He was leading seances when Leni
>>> and
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> baby Ilse
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> visited him. It's pretty hard to read anything other than
>>> death
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> in the words
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> "taken over," given the context. Again, could Pynchon
>>> have been
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> careless
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> with the choice of 1930? Hard to know what to think here.
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. Other stray points: Pokler never sure if the girl he's
>>> with
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> is Ilse.
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Could Margherita be abducting, procuring various
>>> incarnations
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> of Bianca?
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> We're told that Bianca was conceived during the filming of
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Alpdrucken. Was
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> this some sort of mental conception in Margherita's head
>>> - the
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> "idea" of
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Bianca was born, and she went on to procure Biancas?
>>> Grasping
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> at straws
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> here. Stefania doesn't believe Bianca even has a father.
>>> "I
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> doubt she had a
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> father. It was parthenogenesis, she's pure Margherita, if
>>> pure
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> is the word I
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> want." [ Penguin, p. 469]
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Is Pynchon just playing around with Time? I'd believe it
>>> if
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> this were ATD.
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> But the space-time continuum isn't in play in GR, which
>>> is very
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> much about
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Newtonian physics, or, at least, standard engineering
>>> formulae.
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Correct me
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> if there's evidence to the contrary.
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Laura
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> (pardon my laziness in adding the required umlauts)
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> - Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>> >>>>>> >>>> -
>>> >>>>>> >>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>> >>>>>> -
>>> >>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> > -
>>> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>> -
>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20160108/2c7baac6/attachment.html>