Close behind him came the female companion Blundell had remarked, carrying a bundle of ladies' apparel, though clad at the moment in little beyond a floral diadem of some sort, charmingly askew among masses of fair hair.
* * * * * * * * * *
I can't post the picture of what this woman looked like because she's naked and that would probably be considered pornography. I did post a picture of a naked lady by Valenti Angelo from the Richard Burton translation of The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night but that wasn't really something a modern person would find titillating unless they were of the age where their bodies were just beginning to be titillated by things. Back in Burton's day, it couldn't even be published without breaking the law!
I could probably draw my interpretation of her but I don't have as much practice drawing crowns made of flowers as I have drawing ladies' boobies. I grew up in the late 70s/early 80s. Sometimes the only pornography you had was what you imagined a lady looked like without her apparel and then be able to draw it!
Is it sexist that we get a fully dressed man with all of his clothing described accurately and the woman is naked and doesn't even get her outfit described? Probably, right?!
Also, have we seen which Chum wasn't as eager as the others to get a glimpse of the naked lady? There are five of them so the odds are pretty good that one of them is gay. I bet it's not Lindsay because every reader probably already hates him and that wouldn't be a good look, Pynchon! It's probably Darby Suckling.
Oh! Is Lindsay's last name "Noseworth" because he's such a strong and worthy brown-noser? I bet it is!
No comments:
Post a Comment