TS's session, X and a Spengler ?

[Paul Mackin]

On Sun, 20 Jun 1999 DudiousMax at aol.com wrote:
> I am saying that the therapies of WWII were a
> lot less sinister, and maybe did a lot more good, than what Pynchon (who is,
> I think, an anti-Freudian, seeing the shrinks as a priest caste of those
> interested in social-control) portrays.  Of course, he doesn't think much of
> the Skinnerians and Pavlovians either, for similar reasons.  And to some
> extent he is playing those isms off against each other (in true Menippean
> fashion).  But my main thrust here is,  I think the Psychological guys
> weren't necessarily "evil" or "mad scientists" as Pynchon would have us
> believe.

I see what you're saying and of course agree. However you don't literally
mean, do you, that  Pynchon or his book promotes or intends to promote any
kind of belief  that  mad scientists were prevalent in or typical of  the
historic Allied war effort with respect to psychiatry or in general?

Of course a  semirealistic portrayal of military psychiatry wouldn't
necessarily be boring. For example Pat Barker's trilogy on WWI. But it's
not Pynchon's way.

			P.