gabriellew07

In class when we read George Patton’s speech I was intrigued and yet my heart went out to the soldiers who were the actual audience of such a speech and the fear that they must have encountered at that very moment. I for one could not imagine being in the audience and hearing this speech and feeling any kind of ease about my choosing to enter war, or in the case of many being drafted into this war and being forced to put my life on the line. However, upon reading this we don’t exactly get a sense of atmosphere and find parts of the speech funny as I doubt it was intended to be. We are introduced to a rather uncensored read and are shocked at the language and laugh at some of the literal absurdities. However, upon watching the modified speech we are quiet and get a sense of the fear of the soldiers and as I watched, I almost wished to see the faces of the soldiers and hear some of the thoughts going through their minds. It was dead silent as Patton delivered his speech, not a sound could be heard and even after the speech there was no usual applause perhaps for the purpose of drama. However, there was something about seeing the seriousness in Patton’s face and seeing his demeanor and his stature that made the sarcastic remarks less hysterical. There was a sense of compassion that was “army strong” of course, from Patton. Although we know that he is a well-respected general and must be held to a certain standard he talks to the soldiers in a way of trying to let them know that they are not alone in feeling uncertain and afraid, and in fact, your neighbor is just as scared as you are in a sense easing the pain that they must feel being placed in such a situation. I also would like to compare George Patton the general in Full Metal Jacket. I find it interesting how we laugh at this movie and his rather raunchy remarks but make no noise during the visualization of Patton’s speech. Perhaps it was the fact that it was a movie meant for entertainment. Personally I think the degree of seriousness in both visualizations were on different levels therefore perceived differently by the audience. Many times when watching these movies I try to put myself in the shoes of those who are on the opposite end of the scrutiny and believe that unless you are in that situation it simply just can’t be done. When watching the Patton speech the audience is immersed in the speech and almost feel as though we are one of those soldiers prepping to put our lives in danger. However, in Full Metal Jacket we are taken out of the atmosphere and put in the seat of the audience and are onlookers viewing the life and the journey of the soldier making it more comical in the sense. Nevertheless, although both are different visualizations of some of the same sarcastic humor the level of seriousness presented in the visualizations seem to make all the difference with perception.

Two Pattons

Patton on paper was funny to me. He made me smile, laugh to myself. He cursed and called the enemy humorous obscenities. He said "stuff" and "hoot in hell." He spoke on my level. And he spoke from a podium on a stage not too large. He spoke loudly to be heard over the commotion in the audience. And I enjoyed his speech. It made me like him.

Patton on video was different. He made me sit up straight in my chair. His gruff voice said many of the same words as Paper Patton, but I didn't laugh. His raiment was proof of his experience and authority. His tone demanded my attention and respect. The room, silent. He had my attention, everyone's attention. He called the enemy obscenities and I hated them. He called told me how an American acts and I was ready to do so. I was ready to fight. I was ready to follow him.

Visual/Verbal/Written

As General Patton's speech was read out loud in class, the visual image I got in my head, which initially I thought was pretty good, was simply a man standing at a podium in front of the enlisted men giving this speech. However, when we actually watched Patton, my perspective changed completely. The American flag in the background immediately gave off a sense of strong patriotism. The camera zoomed in closely on Patton's many decorations, showing that he is a highly revered and honored man. He conveyed the speech powerfully, emphasizing particular words, using the word "when" as opposed to "if" when speaking of returning home after the war. Patton built up the honor of serving one's country, encouraging the men that victory is the apparent and only end.

Full Metal Jacket and Platoon are two of the most powerful movies I have ever watched. Unlike usual Hollywood war movies these days which include more romance and dramatizations, the two movies portrayed the reality of the Vietnam War and the brutality both sides of the war underwent. At the beginning of the year when we were to read about the facts and details of the War, I understood factually the pain and suffering the soldiers and civilians had to live through. But now, after watching the two movies, my emotions have pushed me to a new level of understanding. Listening to the cries of the villagers and watching the American soldiers try to stay mentally sane through all the hardships was all hard to take in. Seeing the events of the war portrayed in the movies is completely different from simply looking at pictures in textbooks or on the internet. The entire effect of the anguish of the people involved in the war if more fully felt through watching a movie. In Full Metal Jacket, I felt the most moving moment was at the end, when the sniper, who ended up being a young girl, was shot by Joker, but then right after that scene, the army men were all walking and singing together, which is such a sharp contrast from just the previous scene. In Platoon, the burning of the village, for me, was the most intense. Listening to the villagers plea for their lives and the lives of their loved ones was hard to watch. And seeing Barnes and some of the other men kill the innocent because they were annoyed was so striking. From the movies' portrayals, it often seemed that the Americans, made indifferent by all they had to put up with in the war, were heartless and at times totally vulgar. Still, it is hard to imagine what it would be like to be in all the situations each person had to go through, no matter what side of the war he was on. The emotional strength of visual rhetoric is powerful and moving.

General Patton Speech- Textually vs. Visually

I struggled with identifying which version of General Patton’s speech I enjoyed the most. The visual representation presented a strong rhetoric argument through visual appeal. General Patton dramatically strides onto the stage from an unseen. The highly decorated general is dressed in his Class A Uniform layered with metals and tassels of honor. The room sized American Flag covers the entire wall behind the stage, almost intimidating the audience with a sense obligated patriotism. Before General Patton speaks, the audience has been delivered a solid rhetorical argument. General Patton is a man of authority, rank, and honor prepared to deliver a speech advocating American patriotism. Once he begins his speech, his voice roars in the otherwise silent room. The audience in front him is not seen to show more emphasis on General Patton’s speech, mannerisms, and background. His expressions, dramatic pauses, and gestures leave little room for misinterpretations. This brings to a place of conflict. Although, I enjoy the straightforward representation of General Patton’s speech, I also enjoy the ability to freely analyze and interpret as I am able to do with text version. When I read his speech, I did not envision a large flag or a faceless audience. I envisioned General Patton in a more intimate setting with his soldiers such as a dining facility or barrack. I saw eyes of nameless soldiers engaging with their general as he assures and motivates them. When watching the film, I missed the opportunity to imagine and interpret my own rhetorical argument.

Can a comparison be made? In watching Full metal Jacket I found myself disgusted ironically more with the blatant disrespect for the gravity of the Vietnam war than the unrealistic but graphic killings. However, from a different point of view it seems to hold its own as a satirical work in direct relation to the more historically accurate movie Platoon. For this reason, and this reason only, these two movies can be compared on the same grounds. 

The movie Platoon seems to provide a more historically accurate portrayal of the Vietnam war. This being said, I also feel that the movie also draws a direct comparison to the movie Full metal Jacket as viewed from a satirical perspective. For example, the slow deterioration of the troops morale in Platoon is mirrored by the "killing machines" created in Full Metal Jacket. In Full Metal Jacket the troops are nothing more than machines as they are depicted as simple minded buffoons. This can be directly compared to the attitude produced by the troops in Platoon who are forced to fight for something which they do not believe in. 

Patton's Speech

I tried to immerse myself into a grunt's world as Patton's speech was read aloud— as a marine or an army soldier in a briefing room awaiting orders to deploy. In a persuasive argument such as Patton's speech, understanding the audience is essential for the purpose of delivering the speech's message effectively. Generally, World War II is represented as the battle between the Allied Powers and the Axis Powers. Through political and military propaganda, the definitions of the "good guy" and "bad guy" were clearly established. With Patton's speech, we have to understand that the audience is more or less combat-ready and well-trained in the art of war, yet are human beings in the end. These men have been conditioned to kill, yet experience the same sentiments as anyone else, no matter how much it’s often denied. These sentiments, specifically fear, are what Patton hopes to persuade his audience to overcome.

The first paragraph of the speech provided key definitions that would help the audience understand Patton's intentions as the orator. A primary example is the concept of being an American. It was in Patton's interest to convince his audience that as Americans, they are the epitome of patriotism and tradition. For example, Patton speaks of the audience's childhood, detailing the admiration for competition and superiority. Patton hopes to persuade his audience by challenging current belief systems and substituting those systems with his own version. Anyone with an ideology that differs from Patton is essentially "un-American", and is forced change and associate themselves with Patton or join ranks with the enemy.

This technique could be effective for several reasons. First, for the most part, the grunts look up to General Patton not only as a role-model and leader, but as an unchallengeable high-ranking authority. As one of the higher members of the chain of command, there is little that Patton can do to undermine his authority. Patton’s goal is to understand the restrictions that may force his audience to reconsider Patton’s position and eliminate them. Ultimately, it is his goal to establish justification for battle, giving his audience to a reason to fight under his command despite their fear of death. His audience also does not have a reasonable alternative- they have to accept the hardships of war, overcome their fear, and accomplish their missions regardless of how Patton persuades them to do so. In essence, I thought of Patton’s written speech as more of a motivational speech that hides the reality of war. I cannot describe war to its full extent as I’ve never participated in it, yet I know that war cannot be compared to competing in a friendly game of marbles. Winning and losing cannot be explained in the context of war if the details are left out. However, this may have been done intentionally to avoid provoking fear in his audience.

Watching Patton’s speech provoked entirely different reactions. The moment the movie began I saw the giant American flag looming in the background. I thought back to all of the corny speeches I’ve seen on TV where an actor would try to appear patriotic and sway his audience by having someone wave an American flag behind him. However, this flag was static and did not require any support in conveying its symbolic meaning. I finally got an idea of just how large the flag was as the actor portraying Patton walked onstage. It was as if Patton was an element of the flag, carrying and displaying its image as he walked to his audience. His rank and authority was established as the camera panned to his numerous medals and ribbons. This move alone highlighted his credibility as general and speaker before his speech began.

One of the similarities between this speech and its written form is that both try to induce a sense of patriotism through the usage of straw-man argumentation. The one example that comes to mind is when Patton tries to drill into the emotions of his audience, asking about the stories they would want to tell their grandchildren. One could either provide a tremendous and courageous story of one’s participation in the world war, or you could tell your grandchildren that you “shoveled shit in Louisiana”. Of course no one would want to tell their grandchildren the latter. What would they think of you as a grandfather? It’s these statements that Patton hopes are running through the minds of his men, giving them a better reason to participate and join him in battle. The argumentation may not be sound, but it is effective at moving the audience.

The differences between the speeches involve how each addresses the subtlety of war. As I mentioned before, Patton’s written speech masks the true nature of war from his audience, suggesting war is like a competition that desired by real Americans. In the visual speech, Patton makes it clear how the enemy will be killed. Patton described how the enemy would be shot in the stomach first, and how their guts would be spilled. The moment these phrases were spoken, the style of the speech shifted from that of a motivational speech, to one of a darker tone. However, the audience has not changed. Perhaps the visual speech provided some of the harsher details of war simply because at this point, the grunts should have an idea of what to expect. As marines and soldiers, they have been toughened and conditioned to do whatever it takes to accomplish the mission. There is no nice way to point out the realities of war, and this visual speech emphasized these realities.

Patton, the piece of paper v. Patton, the person

As we read the printed words of Patton’s speech, the validity of his argument is in flux with every sentence. We weigh the opening paragraph: “See how he speaks to these men who are about to go to war—that appalling, grotesque human phenomenon, through which countless lives have been destroyed—as if he was a baseball coach, giving a pep talk before the big game.” Does the vulgarity in his language undercut his rhetoric; or does he insert obscenities into his terse, Hemingway-esque prose with calculation, so as to make himself “one of the men”? Etc. When we watch General Patton give the same speech, we realize just how incomplete, in rhetorical terms, the textual reproduction of this speech really is. That is not just to say that we miss the full effect when we read the speech, that the words are brought into sharp relief when they are delivered by a living, breathing human being and accompanied by body language. The substantive content of the printed and video versions of the speech actually differs greatly. In fact, Patton has already made half of his argument before he even utters a word.

Four stars (though incidentally, Patton would still have been a Lieutenant General in Spring 1944) tacked onto a combat helmet, worn with a dress uniform; four more stars atop each shoulder. Silver star around his neck; rows of large full-dress medals adorn one breast, shiny foreign decorations on the other. Riding crop in his left hand; shiny knee-high cavalry boots; colt 45 pistol holstered against his right hip. This is his the greatest part of Patton’s argument—that is, he is his own argument. His image says, “I may be an ‘officer,’ but I am one tough mother*&^er- tougher than any of you out there. I have seen combat; I have stared down death with my handy revolver. I am disciplined, even fastidious, where it counts; yet I am blatantly indecorous so far as concerns all those politicians and squabbling-over-meaningless-crap sissies over in headquarters.” Patton’s image is preposterous. Downright ridiculous. Yet if I was preparing to enter into a combat theater, unimaginably bloody by contemporary standards, I would much sooner be led by a tyrannical, homicidal warmonger with lots of killing experience than a well-polished bureaucrat who could type one helluva TPS report. And it is precisely this assurance which Patton conveys to the Third Army through his personal image, alongside which the outrageous verbal content of his speech seems believable, perhaps even natural.

Platoon and Full Metal Jacket

Throughout Platoon the emotions that are shown on the faces of the men and the events that they had to witness. The close-ups of their faces allowed the watchers to have a glimpse of their eyes, which as humans we tend to associate with. The eyes show the humanity and feelings of a person. The horrors that the men in the movie saw were evident in their eyes, making it easy for the watcher to feel connected to the men. The rhetoric used in this movie provided the argument that the men over in Vietnam were in fact not fighting against the North Vietnamese, but were in fact fighting themselves, which is stated at the end of the movie.
Whereas Platoon is when a man is sent into the war to fight with almost no training, Full Metal Jacket gives the watcher an idea of what went on at the training camps before the men were sent. The training officers subjected them to abuse. They had to become prepared to fight in the war in eight weeks, in contrast to the men who had been training for war for years. In this movie some of the men are driven to extremes even before going to Vietnam; they abuse a clearly challenged man with soap and he has to adapt while becoming what appears to be insane.
In both of these movies the men are driven to killing because of the abuse and actions of others towards them or someone that they are close to. They are righting a wrong in their eyes. The movies show that the men that were affected by the Vietnam War were changed forever, even if they were not even in Vietnam in the first place.

RHE 309K: Textual Patton vs. Visual Patton

It’s the American flag. High, wide, and straightened across the vast stage, showing its magnificence spreading to all corners of the room.

It’s the silence. The stagnant, solemn silence, foreshadowing the important figure that is to come.

He arrives. By the stiffness of his entire body, the brisk march, it goes without saying that he is going to change some lives.

The camera focuses in on his eyes. There’s sternness inside, glaring anger; signs that you do NOT want to cross this man. There are multiple zooms onto his uniform, displaying the medals, awards, and recognitions that he has received. Each time the camera spends more than a few seconds lingering on the medals.
Patton had only came onto the scene for less than minute and he hasn’t spoken yet, but his presence and his power has already become evident.

This background and introduction to Patton is not something that black-and-white text can give us. The non-verbal messages that the film adds to characterize Patton are nothing compared to the text.

Through the text, Patton is still powerful, but on a smaller scale than on film.
In the text, Patton chooses his words carefully; leaves room more pauses, dramatic effect, and appropriately exerts a mood of having a superior speak with you, WITHOUT the rejection of his high military rank. He uses everyday language, causing it to be easy for his audience to relate to him.

He pulls the “patriotic card” a lot during the text. “You’re an American.” “Americans are the best.” “Americans don’t lose, they win.” This is Patton’s way of drawing a common ground between him and his audience while increasing their self-esteem.

With those words, adding a three dimensional character only improves the rhetoric level and further persuades the audience. The film provides an actual character to see, to hear the rough voice, to see the daggers he could throw at you with his eyes if you don’t agree with him, to hear the enunciations.

Patton is able to establish his presence solely by text. However, having a three dimensional character and adding in non-verbal rhetorical devices improves his argument for men to fight in the war by a lot more.

Entrapment

Thomas Pynchon has a masterful yet confusing way of  concocting an argument based off of a surroundin that totally entraps the reader. One such instance is provided to a reader of The Crying of Lot 49 towards the end of the first chapter. In the scene Pynchon uses his art to create a connection of the reader to the main character Oedipa. The emotion created through the outlet of Oedipa gives the reader no choice but to sympathize for her in her somewhat pathetic state. To aid in the creation of this feeling, Pynchon creates an interaction between Oedipa and the tapestry "Bordando el Manto Terrestre."

Due to Pynchon's genius, the tapestry becomes a direct representation of Oedipa and her emotional state. As Pynchon had just shown us earlier through the Rapunzel comparison, Oedipa is in a state of entrapment. The tapestry helps to further this cause as it creates an image of isolation however grandeur the setting is. Oedipa, infact, feels this in her relationship with Inverarity. Wile she is seperated, through inverarity, from the worlds dark backdrop, she is traped in an overly glorified position. This entrapment is modeled by her unwillingness to let go her tears which are also entrapped behind her glasses. She is trapped inside herself due to a sadness she is unwilling to let go.

Just as a commanding officer is not demoted due to a change in station, so Pynchon's art carries over to his other works. For example, we can draw a comparison from his article, "A Journey into the Mind of Watts". In the article Pynchon uses the same trend of entrapment to show the unpleasant state in which society as a whole is stuck. In the work Pynchon portrays a picture of the division of society along racial lines and the hardships the division creates for both sides. 

49 & Watts

In the late ’60’s, Pynchon had two works published, The Crying of Lot 49 and Journey Into the Mind of Watts. The two works very different from each other. But both arguing. And I think they are arguing much of the same argument: Communication failure.

Pynchon goes about this argument in two different ways.

In Lot 49, he makes this argument of communication error by emotion; using false clues, frustrating situations, blending the meaningless with the meaningful, to play with the readers emotion.

He also uses argument by logic, or maybe I should say illogic. Pynchon shows countless communication failures that lead to chaos and infinite nothing. All of it proving irrational, illogical.

In Mind of Watts, the argument leans towards, as Aristotle might say, ethos. The stories and issues Pynchon writes of make the reader asses his or her character. How do I feel about this morally? What are my values in regard to this? Do I even care about this?

One strategy makes the reader feel a certain way, changes their mood. The other causes the reader to step back and evaluate their own character. I think both strategies are smart rhetorical moves. They make the reader react.

RHE 309K: The Crying of Lot 49

Oedipa views herself as the helpless Rapunzel in the tower, trapped with no method of ever getting down. Perhaps this was why she married Mucho, even though there didn’t seem to be much attraction between the two of them. This would also explain the hastiness in Oedipa’s actions to rush into an affair with Metzger. Oedipa is the typical 1960’s common household wife: dependent on her husband, because of an insecurity of her fears of not being able to find more meaning to the world. In the painting “Bordando el Manto Terrestre”, it painted the world that Oedipa lived in. These “frail girls” spent their entire lives in that tower, which resembles the helpless Oedipa who feels trapped within her own world. 

When Oedipa first saw that painting, she cried. It was because she saw the truth in it. There is no escaping the world. The tapestry embroidered by the frail girls started from the tower, which could be represented as Oedipa’s own personal mind. The world is how YOU (or Oedipa) perceive it. It all starts from the mind, and that outlook will extend outward into the world.

The reason why Oedipa feels lonely and desolate in her world is because in her mind she is also lonely and desolate. When she dreams of a knight coming to rescue her from her tower, it is because she wants to get rid of her solitude. However, “Bordando el Manto Terrestre” shows her that she will never be able to. This is why Oedipa sets herself up for disappointment when she finds that men and love can not provide for her mental wellness. The sad thing is even though this problem was pointed out to her since the beginning of the novel, by the end of the novel, she STILL has not figured out how to become fulfilled in her life (by perceiving it so, and not depending on others).

escape from the tower

Oedipa saw herself as a Rapunzel trapped in a tower that only Pierce could penetrate. The way that she envisions herself is not far from the truth, but no one had trapped her up there. She had trapped herself. She would not allow anyone to let her feel the way she had with Pierce, and then when she no longer felt that way with Pierce she began to feel isolated from him.
The way Pynchon describes Oedipa’s feelings makes the reader empathize with her. She was alone in her world just as most people feel at one point or another in their lives. Oedipa was so touched by the painting that she started to cry, but soon became concerned with her tears and herself. She, like many others, saw herself in the art that was in front of her and began to feel as if she was in fact the one that was painted by the artist. Oedipa cannot understand that she is different from the 2 dimensional characters in the tower, because she cannot separate herself from them.
I feel that Pynchon uses many of the same devices in his writings even though one is fictional and the other is not. He uses flashbacks to help emphasize his points and to make a more dramatic experience for the reader. He also makes the writing feel very exaggerated. It allows the reader to feel the important aspects but also the little details that would not be considered significant otherwise.

Lot 49 and The Mind of Watts

The Crying of Lot 49 and “Journey into the Mind of Watts” are similar in that, in both, Pynchon writes with a considerable focus on the human psyche, and both works also present a similarly negative view of his contemporary society, and yet, I believe that neither provides an effective argument.

First, The Crying of Lot 49 is basically a trip through the mind of his fictional character Oedipa, while, as the title states, “Journey into the Mind of Watts” is told from the collective perspective of the residents of Watts. Clearly, Pynchon has a fascination with human psychology, and this interest is reflected in his writing as both of these pieces are very subjective. Pynchon tries to place the audience into the minds of his subjects, trying to create feelings of empathy and understanding. For example, when Oedipa sees the Bordando el Manto Terrestre, Pynchon proceeds to describe every thought and feeling that the painting evokes in her. In a fictional work like Lot 49, such a subjective viewpoint is common. However, Pynchon uses the same technique in “Journey”, when he makes statements such as “Feelings range from a reflexive, angry, driving need to hit back somehow…” and “A Watts kid knows more of what goes on inside white heads than possibly whites do themselves”. No matter how much research or how many interviews Pynchon put into this article, he can never truly know what “A Watts kid” really knows; that would just be impossible. Yet, Pynchon still tries, most likely to compel the audience to empathize with his subjects

Speaking of his subjects, both Lot 49 and “Journey” present a horribly negative view of society. Obviously Pynchon didn’t have great faith in the leaders of his time, because both of these works paint the world as a place of tyrannical control coupled with ignorant bliss for the upper class and inescapable anguish for the lower class. Pynchon basically denies any existence of a middle class in “Journey”. He classifies nearly everyone as either white, and therefore free and happy, or black, and therefore impoverished and destitute. In Lot 49, the distinctions are not based entirely on location and wealth, and are therefore less clear for some characters. However, Oedipa clearly fits in with the “enslaved” category. Her reaction to the Bordando el Manto Terrestre shows that she feels trapped, unable to escape from her sadness. She describes how everything that she hopes to use for escape is all just part of the tapestry, and therefore, she will be forever trapped in the tower.

Although both of these works obviously convey Pynchon’s belief that society is extremely flawed and needs correction, neither provides an effective solution, and therefore, I don’t think either provides an effective argument. I believe that in order for an argument to be really effective, it needs to propose some sort of change. Anyone can criticize, and Pynchon is an excellent critic, but he never proposes any solutions to the problems that he raises, and in fact, both of these works practically state that a solution will never exist. As Lot 49 progresses, it continually reveals more societal flaws until it suddenly ends, without providing any sort of suggestions for improvement. “Journey” also deals with corruption in society, specifically concerning race and poverty, yet this too only criticizes society's current state, and never provides any sort of solution. In fact, when he discusses some possible solutions proposed by others such as E.Y.O.A., he basically states that the black residents of Watts will never trust the white people and therefore, any efforts to fix the situation would be fruitless as embodied by "...there is little reason to believe that now will be any different, any better than last time." The only argument I can draw out of these two works is that society is hopeless, and I cannot see how that would be effective at causing anything except for a widespread feeling of depression.

Many sides of Pychon

Oedipa and the “Bordando el Manto Terrestre” Painting

When I first looked at this piece of artwork, I was somewhat confused. I didn’t quite understand what was going on at first but then I studied the painting in greater detail. In the painting, the upside-down, ghostlike figure represents Oedipa. It represents her in a state where everyone else is normal and she’s the only one in a different zone. She almost seems invisible in the picture as well as the end of the first chapter. She’s confused and lost in the world and doesn’t quite know what she wants to do.

TCL 49 vs. “A Journey into the Mind of Watts”

The way Pynchon writes these two pieces are totally different. TCL 49 was a more difficult piece to read versus “Journey…” which was much simpler to understand. In “Journey…”, Pynchon writes about situations actually happening on the west coast, specifically Watts, California opposed to TCL 49 where he has this fictious story that has nothing to do with the major events happening during that time period. He starts off by telling a story of a black man that was killed at the gun hands of a white cop. This story really sets the tone of how this article is going to go. Pychon talks to fluently about the events happening that it’s kind of strange to read about. We’re so used to him ignoring the current events that it sets an informative tone.

Void

Thomas Pynchon's article "A Journey into the Mind of Watts" was incredibly striking for me. The racial conflict between whites and blacks is a long lasting one, deeply rooted in the history of America. The ignorance of the white population in regards to the high levels of poverty amongst the black population is depressing and the metaphor of Watts as a "pocket of bitter reality" in the white fantasy made a strong impression. The inhabitants of Watts are stuck in this seemingly never-ending cycle of defending themselves against racial attacks from the upper-class and living destitute lives. They are trapped in their poor state with no exit. Still, despite the fact that the people of Watts are unable to break out of their own impoverished lives, they are willing to put up with this darker side of reality, putting up a fight against the idealist perceptions that are forced on them by surrounding, upper-class people. Similarly, as Oedipa Maas views the painting "Bordando el Manto Terrestre" she realizes the mundane-ness of her own personal life. She stands there, crying to herself, observing the beautiful girls in the painting, forever weaving, forever trapped in the tower. Oedipa, although wishes for escape, cannot actually think of what exactly she wants to escape from. Her empty life causes her grief since her life seems to have no purpose and no exit. The young girls in the painting continually weave in hopes of filling the emptiness in their lives, but that void is never filled. Yet they keep weaving and keep hoping. Oedipa, as her shades fill with her tears, wonders if her shades could store her tears, that the tears would never dry. This is relative to the fact that she wishes there was something in her currently dull life that would never disappear.

Self-pity and the Seamstress

Throughout our lives, hopefully, everyone will have at least one revelatory moment invoked by some sort of artistic display, painting, novel, poem, verse, scenery, etc. The gloomy painting, “Bordando el Manto Terrestre,” moves Oedipa into a moment of intense self-reflection. Almost like a mirror, she is faces the truths within her life when studying this painting. The frail, golden haired women are so helpless as they spin away for the world around them. Oedipa considers herself perverse for having this intense, pitiful moment; but I believe it a necessary beginning to change. She was obviously unhappy with her current state of life, as she describes herself being captive in a tower like Repunzel. As humans, we are innately complex and dysfunctional at some level. We desire to move from this state to simplicity, clarity and functionality and I believe relieving change begins with a act of self-reflection. At the end of chapter it reads, “…she may fall back on superstition, or take up a useful hobby like embroidery, or go-mad, or marry a disk jockey. If the tower is everywhere and the knight of deliverance no proof against its magic, what else?” This feeling of the tower in her life having the magical ability to entrap her without a notable way to escape, places her in the seat of these seamtress. She cries knowing her current state and feeling helpless to move out of it. I believe her feeling of self-pity and helplessness just perpetuated this intense feeling of entrapment. I asked myself, “Why does she feel unable to change the course of her future? Why does she only face this issue head on and find the true solution?” Although, there was not a true resolution to the mystery surrounded around her ex-boyfriend, I was glad to see Oedipa taking some sort of active steps towards unraveling the mystery.

Pynchon is a Genius - Tamir Kalifa

Rhetorically, Pynchon’s fiction and non-fiction writing differ because unlike in The Crying of Lot 49, Pynchon establishes a frightening reality in describing a very serious and relevant issue. Pynchon does not immediately want to play with his audience in writing about race riots. He first wants people to see that it is a problem and subsequently sends his audience into discomfort through the reality of their ignorance. He paints the conflict in black and white because so much of it stems from white individuals’ naivety and apathy. The article is laced with biting criticism that exposes ignorance and hypocrisy through anecdotes and clever rhetoric. Pynchon’s first example is one of the LAPD’s abuse of power and the hypocritical prejudice of a justice system that exists to protect and serve the people, not to protect and serve “white” people. He begins the article with a microcosm of the larger conflict describing a murdered “negro” at the hands of a “Caucasian,” a carefully chosen rhetorical distinction, and a justice system that lets the white man win.

Pynchon clearly knows his audience; predominantly white readers of the New York Times with enough time in their day to spend it perusing through black and white pages over coffee. Much of his article contains sharp criticisms of the white individuals who observe but ignore. He speaks directly to them at times when transitioning from a third 3^rd person subjective point of view to the 2^nd person to combat the white man’s lack of concern. “A kid could come along in his bare feet and step on this glass--not that you'd ever know. These kids are so tough you can pull slivers of it out of them and never get a whimper.” Pynchon forces his reader to uncomfortably juxtapose their own lifestyle with one of the streets to make sure they know the differences in lifestyle. He makes his audience feel privileged in knowing they will never have to pull shards of broken glass out of their children’s feet; a casualty of the racial divide that has been cemented by hypocrites and bigots. He uses the same technique later in the essay when launching his readers into the perspective of the black man at the hands of “the Man” with a gun. “You must anticipate always how the talk is going to go. It’s something you pick up quite young…” Pynchon suggests that life is subservience for young African American males and despite the carnal need to survive and fight, they acquiesce. If they do not abide, they run the risk of following the same path as Mr. Leonard Deadwyler.

He also draws an additional distinction between black and white by comparing the white concern “…with various forms of systematized folly…” to black “…realities like disease, like failure, violence and death.” In comparing the two, he mentions that the whites have chosen to, “—and can afford—to ignore.” This abrupt interjection through dashes represents a very significant issue that plagues the conflict nation-wide: the wealth gap. Whites can afford to ignore ““…realities like disease, like failure, violence and death” because they have access to health care, high paying professions, they do not live in neighborhoods where gangs battle over shattered windows for territory and drug money. They live behind the archetypical image of the time: a white picket fence.

In The Crying of Lot 49, Pynchon’s writing is playful as he spins the reader through an elaborate tapestry of logic and coincidence that culminates in confusion on the part of Oedipa Maas and the reader. He is ubiquitously tangential; however, there is a clear distinction in his fictional and non-fiction tangents. One reflects the abstract thought process which makes as little sense as the reality he consciously avoids whereas the other is relevant and provides the moment with a context not otherwise apparent. It elaborates on truths observed, often with a sense of satirical humor. Pynchon’s taste for irony is also evident when he mentions “Preachers in the community are urging calm –or, as other are putting it: ‘Make any big trouble, baby…’’’ This represents the subjective perceptions on both sides and the inability for whites to sympathize or understand the black perspective.

Pynchon’s ability of infiltrating the readers mind allows him to construct a psychological argument by allowing the reader to see it from their own eyes, not Pynchon’s. Because The Crying of Lot 49 is subjective to the perceptions of Oedipa Maas, the reader subconsciously falls into her own shoes and draws conclusions based on her own actions and what she sees. Similarly, in “A Journey into the Mind of Watts,” Pynchon manages to thrust the reader into the story, rather than being an observer. In consistently using the second person, he allows the reader to conjure what he wants them to see by painting images they are all too familiar with.

In terms of argument, his essay is more effective because his ultimate goal would be for people to act; at the very least to be me more self aware. The Crying of Lot 49 is so cryptic its often difficult to decipher at times. The essay however is for more straightforward although the rhetorical techniques and objectives are very similar.

As for the painting, The Bordando el Manto Terrestre, serves as a visual metaphor to Oedipia’s feelings of claustrophobia and uncertainty. As a domesticated product of the 1950s consumer-mania, she finds herself trapped and at a loss for the existence of what is outside the walls of her house where she sits and lives a life which she cannot even see. This passage presents one of Oedpia’s primary dilemmas: “escape.” The helplessness she felt at the frame of the painting suggests that in allowing herself to plummet head first through the rabbit hole of her perceived mystery, she had nothing to lose.

I know I wrote a lot on the second part of the prompt but that essay was so interesting and uncomfortably relevant that I couldn’t resist.

Escapism

By the end of chapter one, the reader is well aware of the consequences Oedipa has to face/suffer as the result of her ex-boyfriend's death. Through the context of this chapter, Oedipa has already convinced herself that she is not capable of executing the will due to her lack of insight, and the enormity of her tasks at hand. We know and she knows that she cannot depend on her husband for assistance. Oedipa makes it clear that she has been examining her husband's mental stability for quite some time due to his everlasting connection with the used car dealership. Oedipa also portrays mental instability of her own. After speculating the cause of death of Pierce Inverarity, she laughs out loud, proclaiming how sick she is. Not only was she aware of how "out of taste" her speculation was, she believes the room is aware as well, suggesting that there has been more than one occasion where she has made such observations of her character. Oedipa experiences a hallucination of Uncle Sam pointing his finger directly at her during a 3 AM phone call by her psychotherapist. So we already know that Oedipa has internal issues, but entirely unaware of the causes. After her meeting with the family lawyer as suggested by her husband, Oedipa provides some clues as to what troubles her.

Most of us, no matter how busy or studious we claim we are, experience escapism in various forms. Whether daydreaming during a class lecture, reading our favorite novel, or owning "noobs" on the 360, escapism has integrated itself into most of our daily routines. For some, like me, escapism is a requirement to preserve our sanity throughout the year. Why is escapism so desirable, or rather, why is escapism so necessary? Specifically, what does a form of escapism suggest about the participant's ideology or lifestyle? Thomas Pynchon's essay, "A Journey into the Mind of Watts", provides insight to these questions in his analysis of the racial tension of Watts in the city of Los Angeles in 1966. Pynchon describes Watts as a "pocket of bitter reality" engulfed by the illusions of the rest of white Los Angeles. This white L.A. Scene is a concoction of artificial, materialistic, and superfluous ingredients consisting of magazine photos, one-hit-wonders, the media, etc. Pynchon suggests that young members of white L.A. "... have been conditioned to believe so much in escape, escape as an integral part of life, because the white L.A. Scene makes accessible to him so many different forms of it." From this context, accessibility not only pertains to one's environment and setting, but also social and economic status. As young adults with the profession of "college students", we have been conditioned to believe that we need to "get away" every once in a while. Whatever the form of escapism, it is our way of dealing with the stress and tension that develops from our lifestyles. Being a college student is a test of balancing quality work and escapism, where consequences are to be suffered if either outweighs the other. Examples of these consequences include failing to socialize and be physically active, or failing to complete an assignment or study for an exam. Escapism in itself is an illusion, as it is only a temporary measure to ease our stress. We put on our happy masks at the end of the week and say “TGIF”, only to find ourselves dragging our feet Monday mornings. Escapism can be subtle or extreme, but for some it is never experienced at all.

At the end of chapter one, Oedipa visualizes herself as a type of Rapunzel trapped in a tall tower waiting for someone to ask to let her hair down. By the end of her revelation, her conclusion suggests that she has not experienced her own form of escape, and has been denied of that experience as a result of her relationship with Pierce. This sort of fantasy of being the damsel in distress, only to have a Prince Charming sweep her off her feet, or in her case climb up her hair and rescue her, establishes the element of illusion which embodies escapism. The origin of her longing for escapism is explained by the effects of some cryptic external force. This is not very different from Pynchon’s statement on escapism as a conditioned desire, established by its accessibility to the participant. Accessibility, depending on the context, has various definitions; allowing external influence to be a cause of one’s desire to commit to self-discovery. Humans are complex, and in this sense, Oedipa's thought process is not at all different from the reader’s.

Oedipa's mess

Pynchon neglects to mention a crucial part of the scene portrayed in “Bordando el Manto Terrestre.” Although the existence of an imprisoning force is implied in his vague description of the tapestry-embroidering girls as “prisoners in the top room of a circular tower” [emphasis my own], Pynchon makes no explicit reference to the robed, partially veiled (and not slightly nefarious) sorcerer, the apparent agent of their imprisonment, who stands in the middle of the room, nonchalantly stirring his smoking potion, while the girls weave away. The second robed figure, sitting behind the sorcerer, is depicted less clearly; however, his (or her) generally creepy nature and complicity in the girls’ imprisonment seem clear enough. The sorcerer reads from his book of spells, as his shrouded companion looks on with folded hands; the captive girls, unquestionably subject to his control, perhaps even entranced by a spell, continue to sew mindlessly, their uninformed fingers stitching square after square of the vast, chaotic fabric of history. And it is in the windswept unfurling of this billowing fabric which Oedipa finds herself helplessly caught up, every circumstance of her existence having been dictated by a robed sorcerer, who lords silently over four flaxen-haired maidens, in a tower that looms oppressively over her consciousness, but whose shadow is always just outside her field of view.

Oedipa’s problem, her mess, is twofold. First, she has grown up under a delusion of the inevitability of her own salvation, contingent only upon her own patience. Second, she has unconsciously ceded the sole agency of this salvation to forces which lie wholly outside of herself- and beyond the reach of her understanding. This evokes a central theme in The Crying of Lot 49, one which could be described as a delusive belief in an eternal, proverbial They. They are picking up mail from trash bins, unbeknownst to all the passersby. Unless, of course, you happen to notice them doing so, in which case they are demoted to a normal 3rd Pers. Pl. pronoun, and They become black-clad assassins from antiquity, the United States government and the dark, secret rooms inside of which its actions are really decided, the workings of a dead man’s brain, which may have conceived an elaborate practical joke shortly before its extinction, or an anonymous bidder at a stamp auction. Behind all of these vulgar, accidental manifestations, of course, lies the true They: a robed sorcerer whose mysterious whims decide the course of history, and whose tower can never be assailed, for it can never be found. Oedipa’s confused belief in They follows naturally from the disillusionment she experiences upon realizing that her salvation may not be so inevitable, after all. Even Pierce Inverarity, despite having appeared to be the knight who would finally free Oedipa from her own little Rapunzel’s tower, did not carry any key, by the turning of which he could singlehandedly produce her salvation. And the man she ended up marrying couldn't even begin to save himself. Having already so thoroughly divested herself of any sense of control over her own destiny, her erstwhile belief in the inevitable approach of a saving knight soon gave way to an equally strong belief in a sorcerer, with a conscripted army of young spinsters, and of whose tower she was constantly just missing that elucidating glimpse which would be her salvation.