Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Damien Hanich's avatar

I'm answering a little late but I have been enjoying reading along with these for my read-through and I guess this is as good a time as any to ask: are 'They' real? Do 'They' actually exist or is it a deliberately nebulous construct the characters of the novel can blame all of the world's ills on without needing to take a more nuanced look at the actual society that leads to all of their problems? Problems which may be at least to some extent the characters' own personal issues rather than conspiracies? I recall last the post on 16.1 with Jessica and Roger. Perhaps Roger and Jessica's falling away from each other is not the result of some grand dehumanising capitalist force, and is just the much more simple fact that sexual compatibility and yes, even passionate love, are not sufficient for a long term healthy relationship where you also need the friendship and simple trust that Jessica seems to have with Beaver.

The rhetorical framing of those questions probably indicates where I stand, but I'm not 100% confident I'm necessarily right in that assumption. The fact that the book literally always used capital T 'They' which feels like a caricature of paranoid conspiracy theory types sort of made me feel that Pynchon was hinting at that. I ask this here because the way your analyses really confront that feeling in the book of oppressive systems so vast as to be insurmountable yet so ingrained as to be barely perceptible just ticked me off to these considerations.

With how much the Counterforce fail at the end of the book, is Pynchon critiquing the paranoid mentality that reduces the hyper-complex and increasingly post-human systems of our world to some malicious human deliberation rather than admitting it's way more complicated than that? I'm pretty much spitballing here lol.

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts