Things and stuff

[Plainmrbotanyb at protonmail.com]

Georgy-porgy pudding and pie

Kissed the girls and made them cry

When the boys came out to play

Little Georgie ran away

If someone, however, does play a lot with the boys, then the rhyme isn't completely applicable.  And the current POTUS (not comfortable with this locution, does anyone else recoil from it I wonder) plays with boys, although it may not be as much fun for them as they might wish, by many accounts.

Does Peter T Hooper practice this behavior himself? It's always easiest to criticize one's own faults in others.

It's only a nursery rhyme (it's only a northern song) but it does have ramifications

- to wit, this Georgie, does he eat the pudding and pie? (high sugar consumption may be linked to his behavior)

Or is he being compared to pudding and pie?

If so, perhaps his softness and sweetness make him somewhat attractive but again, perhaps not highly nutritive.

One envisions him on a playground,  seeking out a female group engaged in behaviors which may include non-stereotypical interactions and physicality, let's not assume that feminine means passive, because playground memory informs one quite otherwise - but attempting inappropriate forms of touching. How do we know it's inappropriate? Because they cry!

Why do they cry? Maybe they are perplexed by his attempt to sexualize a social situation. Or they feel sorry for him. It's possible that his likely size differential and a presumable lack of finesse makes his approaches painful for them. Or they lament the interruption of the activity they were previously enjoying.

When the boys come out to play, let one again not imagine their activities as only rough-and-tumble,  but also verbal and communicative, trying out attitudes and postures. His impulse to kiss girls finds no place in this group, although it could, if he voiced them and sought reactions - hey, do you guys ever want to kiss those girls? Or, that Betty Lou sure is cute. By a sorting process, as the other boys express their thoughts, a rough consensus on a range of attitudes could be added to the group vocabulary and Georgie could probably find a place. Boys can be very accepting! (Again, playground memories)

After his deserved rebuff by the girls, and perhaps because his sugar high has worn off - and maybe because he feels he lacks the presentation skills to hang with the boys - he runs away.

One hopes there is hope for Georgie! To freeze him there as he runs away (ignoring the fact that he's in motion: Zeno to the contrary,  he will get somewhere else, eventually)
and make up an
-ism to fling pejoratively and anonymously at the (currently ensconced, despite numerous well-deserved asterisks) CinC of the bewilderingly huge US military (if you could take all that talent and do something not even constructive, but just not destructive, with it!) seems unkind.

Vilifying millions of guys named Donald with an even less well-defined -ism is even worse!

 Who is Peter T Hooper to prescribe? In the context of a pseudonymous post referring to the works of an author not only commercially successful, but critically acclaimed, can he seriously claim that his commentary adds to an understanding of Pynchon or that his political views are buttressed by Pynchon's work?

There don't seem to be reflections of a strong urging to matrimony in the oeuvre, do there?

(Although there are some indications, true: Noseworth, a soldier in M&D, the Marquis de Sod, practically all of BE, in which even the bad guy is somewhat redeemed by his marriage to the Guatemalan woman, not to mention Pappy Hod and Paola with her Miraculous Medal)

Or that this will avoid exacerbating size discrepancy between the sexes? (There is Flange's attraction in "Lowlands" for Nerissa, abandoning Cindy, which few would call normative)

Mr Pynchon himself rocks above-average stature and does it with aplomb according to a personal account on the late lamented Spermatikos Logos. As a person who achieved success, without much or any viciousness, and with that credential and his personal characteristics, gained access to a "field," which he reportedly "played" at some times in his life, when not pledged in wedlock, with consenting partners, and no accounts call him into question of heartlessness or mindlessness, do they? - as such a person, his actions, and those of many who have engaged in multiple relationships without exploitation or coercion, perhaps even including yourself - call for a more informed analysis: is there a place for evanescent romance? Is there a reason for it? Does it contain an inherent vice? Does that render it something to avoid? How should we proceed? How can you know in advance if something will work out? Tell me, where is fancy bred?

The world, Monsieur Hooper, is vaster than your categories. (Though I hope neither of us wants to make the girls cry)

I join you in support of the current, Democratic, fairly elected Speaker of the House. One might be happier with her supporting the Green New Deal, inter alia, but one could always be happier, eh?