Mary Wittler wrote (Fri, 27 Nov 1998):
> Dear Squad,
> I have a confession to make. I have never been able to read "Lila" all the
> way through. Can you guess why? It is because I am a woman. I shall
> explain. Page 1, paragraph 2 begins:
>
> "The light from the open hatch above was so dim it concealed whatever lines
> of cosmetics and age were there and now she looked softly cherubic, like a
> small girl with blond hair, wide cheekbones, a small turned-up nose, and a
> common child's face that seemed so familiar it attracted a certain natural
> affection."
>
> My worst fears are rising in my throat. I feel desolate and a little sick,
> but I keep reading:
>
> "But that isn't how it would be. When Lila's eyes opened in a hung-over
> daze she'd look into the features of a gray-haired man she wouldn't even
> remember..."
>
> Obviously to me, paragraph 3 is intended to mitigate the misogyny of
> paragraph 2. Lila is defined as a drunken whore, not worthy of our
> compassion. What are Pirsig's motives? My first thought is to give him the
> benefit of a doubt. He must be just using this hackneyed device to set the
> stage for the reader. But does he really believe his readers are so dumb?
> Is it really necessary to open the book with the central female character
> portrayed as so shallow and contemptible? Doesn't he realize that he has
> just struck at women with the most heinous blow western society has to
> offer?
>
> With few exceptions, almost all of the Lila Squad contributors are men.
> Let's not bring Diana into this since she has defined her role to be our
> leader, director, and synthesizer of the MoQ. Now the MoQ is very worthy of
> discussion. I have only the highest regard for Pirsig's efforts; but, it
> has thusfar been a primarily masculine exercise. If the goal is to clarify
> and synthesize the MoQ so that it is understandable to those who have not
> read Pirsig's work, nor had the time or inclination to think about it for a
> year if they had; then we have a problem.
>
> Later in the book I understand that Phaedrus learns a lot of things from his
> observations of Lila, but she is never redeemed. For example, she does not
> turn out to be a hero; a misunderstood personality of great depth (which is
> generally what all heroes are).
>
> Less is more. I will end here, but I sincerely invite your comments. I
> view this as a central problem for the promulgation of the MoQ. View this
> as a feminine entreaty to the masculine world.
Hi Mary and Group
Your point is valid if LILA is read as an inquiry into
the twenty first century's view on women, but it is not. It is a
philosophy book. Its political correctness and literature qualities
may be nil, still I couldn't care less.
To make a confession. I am now an elderly man and have experienced
the decline of the physical (biological), of becoming a non entity to
the vanity fair, but am I to blame the young and beautiful for not
wanting to know me, and am I to consider their contemptuous glances as
a "heinous blow"? That would be complete silliness from my side. One
just withdraws before making a complete fool of oneself and regard
it a phase left behind.
I consider everything about the book to be in the service of
demonstrating the MOQ so the description of Lila Blewitt may be
shallow but there is no feminine or masculine component to
the MOQ. The sexual attraction/discrimination is a Biological value
of enormous age and importance as is hunger and craving for
food. As I wrote in my "Eugenics" piece (that Platt had dug up): "
Eugenics (read sexual discrimination/ evaluation) is LIFE itself, but
as an IDEA it should not be contemplated".
BTW. Do you remember the passage from ZAMM where P. comments on the
lack of development of Sylvia's and John's characters? He concluded
that it was as it should be among friends. Another passage from ZAMM
that made a deep impact on me was the one where he complains about
Phaedrus not living up to expectations: the class at the Navy Pier
University - where he teaches Quality - goes like wildfire, but poor
Phaedrus is not a shepherd and grows more and more silent and scared
of his "followers".
This is possibly the true Robert Pirsig. He cannot but forward his
ideas and they ignite, but he won't have any devotees or be
considered a leader of a "church" or a guru or a popular author even.
His contribution is the Quality idea and the MOQ, and that's enough.
IMHO
Bodvar
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:40 BST