The discussion on Monday about what was going on with Joelle got me thinking about the idea of fatal pleasures. Joelle might be covering her beauty because it's too much, ie. fatal beauty. It's implied that that's got something to do with why the Entertainment is so fascinating. Therefore, her beauty really can actually kill someone.

This adds beauty to the list of pleasures and pursuits that Wallace is saying can be pursued to a point of no return. Beauty, entertainment, drugs, thrills. I'd say it was a commentary on American pasttimes, except the pursuit of thrills until death was from the Fauteuils Rollants, who are definitely Canadian.

I tried to read Infinite Jest a couple years back, maybe 2 or 3, and frankly, that's a good part of why I'm enrolled in this class. Besides being forced to read Gravity's Rainbow, which I knew I needed (or I'd never do it myself). I probably got about 200 pages in - I can't remember exactly - but I vividly remember dropping the book one time, forgetting my place, and thinking I found it, only realizing after reading TWENTY PAGES that I hadn't reached this section in the least. I was nearly 50 pages off, in fact. This led me to decide that you can open this book at any point at all and it will probably make about as much sense as if you had read up to that point. Now, I realize that Gravity's Rainbow probably would have felt that way had we not talked it out so extensively, and used the companion. Which is why I'm taking this class, really - so I can have a guided reading through this book that, last time I read it, seemed a jumbled mish mash of plots and fragmented narrative.

A friend found out we're reading Underworld for class, and asked if it's worth reading; if it's a "page turner." I replied that it isn't in the traditional sense of the word, but more of a sweeping American epic. "Like the Great American Novel?" she joked, having read far too many of those in her time here.

I've read that Underworld was, in fact, Don DeLillo's attempt at the Great American Novel. But what exactly is THE Great American Novel? Wikipedia says it "is the concept of a novel that perfectly represents the spirit of life in the United States at the time of its publication. It is presumed to be written by an American author who is knowledgeable about the state, culture, and perspective of the common American citizen."

I was thinking again about the idea of people wanting to be a part of a historical event, and again, I came back to the cover's uncanny prophecy. I know the idea of throwing paper to touch the event might seem silly, but just think about 9/11 - when it happened, who didn't say to someone, "Oh, man, my boss's brother-in-law's sister died in the towers"? Even though it was a tragedy, it was an event of huge national importance, and shapes this century so far. People want to have some sort of link to it. I know, living in CT, people who drove over to the beach to see the smoke coming from the western horizon. And then, those people can say, "In a way, I was there".

Overall, the companion is really helpful in reading Gravity's Rainbow. The basic plot points are there if you get a little lost, which is nice. But there are definitely parts of this book where I am looking at the plot and wondering "Why?" or "How did that happen?", and most of the time, I can't find the answers to those questions in the companion. The answers may be in the book itself somewhere, but flipping back through 600 pages to search for a possible explanation of probably trivial actions doesn't really work too well, I've discovered.

So I tried the old Internet approach, looking the book up on Sparknotes and Pinkmonkey, hoping to get some basic things about a couple of episodes that are beyond me solved. Neither site has this book. They have everything from the Odyssey to The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, but not this. The only internet summaries I could find that went by episode were all from one source, and simply consisted of quotes from the book...which wasn't helping me in the first place.

This was going to be a comment....but it's not.

A fellow senior English major here at Pomona is actually writing his thesis on the feminine in Gravity's Rainbow (and one other book). I was very surprised to find that out, as I thought the masculine would be the obvious choice. We've got how many characters at this point, and something like two of them are women? Anyway, I realized, while contemplating this guy's choice, that their role in the novel is actually a lot more powerful than we are giving them credit for. I'm pretty sure Katje is a major power player, or at least was in her past.

In accordance with my recent fascination with names in this book, I realized tonight that I would very much like to know the reasons behind Pynchon naming the plastic Imipolex G. Problem is, I'm so far past its introduction into the novel, that I could spend days looking for the citation in the companion that would explain it to me.
Did anybody happen to look up the origins of that name, or know where in the book it's first referenced at least?

I'm finding the names in this book fascinating and amusing. Plus, the names are the only thing that I can reliably find in the companion book. Every name gets an entry, unlike some things that I'm totally confused on and then try to look up, to no avail...

Anyway, the concept of naming as an indicator of the character's personality is pretty interesting. It reminds me of the Bible, where naming itself is imbued with significance. Naming is a form of power, and through this I suppose Pynchon is asserting power over his multitudinous characters, if only just to keep them straight in his mind. It probably helps a lot to go through one's list of people and get a clue as to who they were when they were last mentioned 500 pages ago just by reading their name. I know I wouldn't be able to figure out who they all were otherwise.