GRGR(5) Katje and the Nazis

[Doug Millison]

Doug:
>> Unlike the many
>> other American novelists who wrote about WWII in the 50s and 60s, TRP made
>> public specific facts about WWII, and the involvement of American companies
>> and individuals in WWII, that were not widely known in '73 -- facts that a
>> generation of historians who follow TRP have taken great pains to document
>> and explain so that, in 1999, much of what was relatively obscure and
>> arcane in 1973 finds much wider distribution and broader acceptance.
>
At 10:48 AM -0400 7/10/99, Paul Mackin wrote:
>I'm sure Doug won't mind my attempting to clarify possible points of
>misunderstanding. Certainly, WWII historians have brought things to light
>that were not generally known in 1973 but it's equally certain that this
>has little or nothing  to do with what GR says or does not say?

To the degree that a number of historians have provided further
documentation and corroboration for the historical content of GR that TRP
popularized, I'd say it's significant. Just one fellah's opinion, of
course.

>Historians
>do not "follow" highbrow literary  novelist in the sense they take
>guidance from them.

Know that for certain? I can think of a couple of people writing history
(or maybe it's just high-brow investigative journalism that looks to the
past) who have been motivated by the desire to prove or disprove one or
more aspects of the conspiracy view of history that TRP promulgates in GR
and his other novels.

>What happens is that important archives eventually
>open up and historians are waiting in line to see what's there. That's
>where their new ideas come from, not from anyone's  "political
>statements." It would be interesting to survey WWII historians to see if a
>higher proportion of them than of the general public has ever even heard
>of Thomas Pynchon. I know Doug is not really saying anything to the
>contrary, but including so much as he did in the same sentence is
>confusing.

Then again, some people are more easily confused than others, aren't they.
Present company excluded, of course!

Watching my dependent clauses, p's & q's,
Doug

d o u g  m i l l i s o n  http://www.online-journalist.com