Line in Vineland on "Unspeakable"

Wed Jan 21 18:08:48 UTC 2026

Which to me is why it is the broadest deepest meaning. why else would a
genius do anything else?

Why this and not that in the words?Always the question for explication, in
my arrogant opinion, but always remember
I post too much when asked to fill the silence of the silent everyones who
say I post too much...

On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 10:52 AM mack devon <mackdevon74 at gmail.com> wrote:

> To be fair, this is the same book that provided the passenger next to
> Takeshi playing a game about the duality between the atomic bomb and sex on
> his Gameboy titled "Nukey" (a play on Nookie) lol.
>
> If not this, then what do you imagine the paragraph meaning in the scope
> of the story to this point, beyond just this metaphorical (maybe)
> submarine's name and intention? Not to be too much of a bother, obviously I
> would prefer not to be racking my mind for a day straight on a couple of
> lines, but it comes out of nowhere, with nothing before or after bearing
> any relation.
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 9:55 AM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No. But all undertones might work in Pynchon but this is too literal and
>> not meaningful enough for Pynchon imo.
>>
>> Check all the older and psychological means of Pynchon but you think
>> you’ve got it so go with it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 9:04 AM mack devon <mackdevon74 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I appreciate both responses, but I'm more searching for the literal
>>> event within this page of Vineland. With these variations of the word
>>> Unspeakable that Mark has shared (Inexpressible, Wicked, Return of the
>>> Repressed) and Hubshrauber's "Usually, the Unspeakable is below the
>>> surface," the context of unrequited love (or lust) between Takeshi and DL
>>> by this point, the reference to Love Boat, and the rising, then sinking at
>>> unfulfillment...I'm still leaning towards believing this is a schoolboy
>>> style joke about an erection written just a little bit more eloquently than
>>> usual. I'm just wondering if this is your takeaway from this event within
>>> the book, not necessarily just the dissection of Pynchon and the word
>>> Unspeakable.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 8:27 AM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The phrase *"The Unspeakable"* in English carries a fascinating
>>>> duality: it refers to both the *divine* (that which is too glorious
>>>> for words) and the *diabolical* (that which is too horrific to name).
>>>> Its history reflects a shift from religious awe to psychological horror and
>>>> the modern "uncanny."
>>>> 1. Etymological Origin and History
>>>>
>>>> The word *unspeakable* emerged in Middle English around *1400*. Its
>>>> meaning has evolved through two primary lenses:
>>>>
>>>>    -
>>>>
>>>>    *The Ineffable (c. 1400):* Originally, it meant "inexpressible" or
>>>>    "too great for words." This was often used in a religious context to
>>>>    describe the glory of God or the "Unspeakable Being."
>>>>    -
>>>>
>>>>    *The Wicked (Mid-15th Century):* By the mid-1400s, the meaning
>>>>    shifted toward "indescribably bad or wicked." It became a way to categorize
>>>>    crimes or entities so heinous that naming them would be a secondary
>>>>    violation of morality.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    For Freud, the Unspeakable was the content in his concept of The
>>>>    Uncanny. Simplified, The Unspeakable is the 'return of the repressed' --a
>>>>    phrase P uses somewhere, I believe, or at least a concept he uses fer sure..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 8:03 AM Hübschräuber via Pynchon-l <
>>>> pynchon-l at waste.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Usually, the Unspeakable is below the surface...
>>>>>
>>>>> The title of Thomas Merton's collection of essay "Raids on the
>>>>> Unspeakable" (1966) comes to mind, which was inspired by T.S. Eliot's
>>>>> description of poetry in "East Coker" as a "raid on the inarticulate".
>>>>>
>>>>> https://merton.org/ITMS/Seasonal/36/36-4Labrie.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> I only know Merton through Jim Douglass' "JFK and the Unspeakable"
>>>>> (2008).
>>>>>
>>>>> Douglass writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> -- "The Unspeakable" is a term Thomas Merton coined at the heart of
>>>>> the sixties after JFK’s assassination—in the
>>>>> midst of the escalating Vietnam War, the nuclear arms race, and the
>>>>> further assassinations of Malcolm X, Martin
>>>>> Luther King, and Robert Kennedy. In each of those soul-shaking events
>>>>> Merton sensed an evil whose depth
>>>>> and deceit seemed to go beyond the capacity of words to describe.
>>>>>
>>>>> "One of the awful facts of our age," Merton wrote in 1965, "is the
>>>>> evidence that [the world] is stricken indeed,
>>>>> stricken to the very core of its being by the presence of the
>>>>> Unspeakable." The Vietnam War, the race to a
>>>>> global war, and the interlocking murders of John Kennedy, Malcolm X,
>>>>> Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy
>>>>> were all signs of the Unspeakable. It remains deeply present in our
>>>>> world. As Merton warned, "Those who are at
>>>>> present so eager to be reconciled with the world at any price must
>>>>> take care not to be reconciled with it under
>>>>> this particular aspect: as the nest of the Unspeakable. This is what
>>>>> too few are willing to see."
>>>>> When we become more deeply human, as Merton understood the process,
>>>>> the wellspring of our compassion
>>>>> moves us to confront the Unspeakable. --
>>>>>
>>>>> https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/index.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Gesendet mit Proton Mail: Ein sicherer E-Mail-Dienst.
>>>>>
>>>>> mack devon <mackdevon74 at gmail.com> schrieb am Dienstag, 20. Januar
>>>>> 2026 um 18:04:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Page 174 I've been stuck on for a little while. The book normally
>>>>> stays
>>>>> > pretty literal with its depictions, oftentimes getting a bit tricky
>>>>> with
>>>>> > what to take as metaphor or not. This is my 2nd read-through, I must
>>>>> not
>>>>> > have thought too much of this my first time around. Anyways, around
>>>>> early
>>>>> > page 174, after the Thanatoid introduction and DL & Takeshi explore
>>>>> > their village, a paragraph pops up that I'm still confused with.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > With a little context:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > "Yep, one foolish mistake, now I'm payin' it off for the rest of my
>>>>> life."
>>>>> >
>>>>> > "Only for the rest of mine, angel!" as up out of a calm and sunny
>>>>> ocean
>>>>> > the killer sub Unspeakable briefly poked its periscope, eyeballed
>>>>> their
>>>>> > vessel, ascertained that it was not the Love Boat, and withdrew. But
>>>>> they
>>>>> > were learning, together, slowly, how to take evasive action, and at
>>>>> the
>>>>> > moment it was down through an austere maze of Shade Creek alleyways
>>>>> and
>>>>> > vacant lots for an extended breakfast and another day's business.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Now, I've got a couple guesses as to this Unspeakable passage, as I'm
>>>>> > almost certain it's not meant to be taken literally (unless in
>>>>> reference to
>>>>> > the men after Takeshi currently spying...but that's way off it
>>>>> seems.)
>>>>> > There's a very likely chance this is not in reference to an actual
>>>>> Killer
>>>>> > Sub on the prowl.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > 1. Could this be a classic Pynchon erection joke meant to reference
>>>>> > Takeshi's lust towards DL being unfulfilled due to her lack of
>>>>> desire & her
>>>>> > contract? The Unspeakable being The Unspeakable Erection, poking
>>>>> out, and
>>>>> > withdrawing when not encountering a Love Boat. I feel like there
>>>>> might be
>>>>> > some old-school slang for Unspeakable/unmentionable wrt a penis, but
>>>>> I'm
>>>>> > too young to know. (This is the most likely option to me.)
>>>>> >
>>>>> > 2. Could this be just a strange reference to Thanatoids spying on
>>>>> the duo,
>>>>> > noticing that they aren't in love, but rather that they're truly
>>>>> partners?
>>>>> > (Very unlikely, just made up to not have to 100% align myself with
>>>>> Erection
>>>>> > Theory.)
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > This is my first post here, I wanted to discuss this topic as I
>>>>> haven't
>>>>> > seen these lines discussed anywhere, I hope I formatted this well
>>>>> enough.
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>>>>
>>>>