Drugs in Pynchon's fiction ( - minor SPOILER)

[Paul Mackin]

On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Terrance F. Flaherty wrote:
> 
> What? Pro-coce? Explain this please. I have read it three
> times, and I don't see how this could be pro-coce?????

Perhaps all the text implies is the ban on cocaine in the drink was
inconsequential because our fighting men had the same thing in alcohol to
fall back on anyway in which case the point itself was fairly
inconsequential unless it happened to carry with it  the implication
that the cocaine was a better choice  than alcohol because it didn't
foment the same killer instincts. Thus I gave that interpretation the 
benefit of the doubt even though there would of course be no reason
on God's Green Earth  upon which to base such a  differentiation other
than   that it fit the larger point the whole paragraph was making about
the fatefulness of that particular year in question (which I forget).
Pynchon should only be interpreted in decent sized blocks. Individual
assertions of a sentence or less can't be expected to stand alone.

				P.