Crying of Lot 49, Group Read 2024

[Mark Kohut]

I think she cried because there was hardly even an LIKE in it, much less
love....he and Pierce talked over
doing it to/with her....this ruins Pierce's supposed love for her......A
man who loves you doesn't go talking
over with a judgment how hard it is to seduce you.....

On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 5:48 PM J K Van Nort <jkvannort at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I didn’t find it funny. The scene in the bathroom with the aerosol can,
> funny. The Paranoids asking if this was some British thing, funny.
>
> I never equated this with love, just lust and sex. Consensual SEX is
> continuous and consenting. That being said, I go back to my point that this
> is not a good Pynchon sex scene. Not b/c of the question of consent, but
> just not realistic, unlike the sex between Roger Mexico & Jessica, Slothrop
> and nearly any encounter, or even the brutal sex between Lake with Deuce &
> Sloat.
>
> One last question on this point: why does Oed cry at the end before
> returning to Metzger?
>
> In solidarity,
>
> James
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
> <https://mail.onelink.me/107872968?pid=nativeplacement&c=Global_Acquisition_YMktg_315_Internal_EmailSignature&af_sub1=Acquisition&af_sub2=Global_YMktg&af_sub3=&af_sub4=100000604&af_sub5=EmailSignature__Static_>
>
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2024, 17:30, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> The sex scene with Metz is pure Pynchon slapstick-farce. It’s more like a
> comic duel. It’s by no means anything about love. Its erotic value is more
> comic-kink than hot fetish.  It’s really more a battle of wit
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 5:17 PM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've read the scene closely again..."his radiant eyes flew open, pierced
> her"---
> "an enormous sigh that carried all rigidity like a mythical fluid from
> her".....WTF parody of Romance novels is one slant.........
> ."she couldn't help him undress her.  {She's a puddle of melte emotion]
>  ......then the Barbie doll metaphor and she falls asleep "once or
> twice".....
>
> Notice that Oedipa says "as if, she thought, he were......[a] little
> girl"....
>
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 4:40 PM J K Van Nort <jkvannort at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Does that include having sex with someone who is asleep that they just met?
>
> I’m fine with Oed having WTF sex, and she wants to have it. In Metzger’s
> situation, I wouldn’t continue if the woman had passed out. Using sex to
> wake her up is presumptuous at best.
>
> In solidarity,
>
> James
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
> <https://mail.onelink.me/107872968?pid=nativeplacement&c=Global_Acquisition_YMktg_315_Internal_EmailSignature&af_sub1=Acquisition&af_sub2=Global_YMktg&af_sub3=&af_sub4=100000604&af_sub5=EmailSignature__Static_>
>
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2024, 16:15, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Men have WTF sex all the time.  It’s not “real” or love. It’s SEX
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 4:02 PM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The sex Oed has with Metz is a guarded WTF sex.  He initially flashed his
> > sexuality so expertly that Oed figured he must be an actor setting her
> up,
> > maybe hidden camera. He turns her on. He doesn’t APPEAR gay… He’s
> annoying,
> > but her hair-down mode is powerful. So she feels up for the challenge
> >
> > David Morris
> >
> > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 3:29 PM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Speaking again of sex, Oedipa and Metzger,
> >> when I wrote about bad sex--not fully conscious, engaged, loving
> >> Lawrentian sex--there is the countertruth (if I am right)...that
> >>
> >> They came together, satisfyingly.
> >>
> >> The need? The meaning?
> >>
> >> Oedipa's bite, thru the sharkskin suit into M's arm? Not normal. WTF?
> >> And I was led to these words in Margaret Atwood's early poetic
> >> narrative *The Journals of Susannah Moodie. *A Canadian woman
> >> on the prairie, struggling, in the mid-nineteenth century.
> >>
> >>  "you dangle on the leash of your own longing; your need grows teeth."
> >>
> >> No, no influence on Pynchon, maybe the reverse?  1970
> >> --
> >> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>
>