GRGR: Todorov and Clendinnen on the Holocaust

[rj]

cfa:
> 
> This sounds like an invention. I've never heard the Warsaw Ghetto 
> used as a "spurious justification" of any official or unofficial act 
> of the state of Israel, or its supporters. 

Like I said, I have every reason to believe that Todorov has done has
homework and isn't out merely to provoke controversy or sensationalise
in order to self-aggrandise. I'm sure the book is generally available
(and that as well as being received with respect in the academy it has
been quite widely-read in French and in English.)

And also as I've said, I have the feeling that the sort of approach
Todorov is advocating (perhaps) derives from, or equates to, that in
*GR*. It seemed to me that the ambiguity of the novel's opening section,
which could quite feasibly refer to the Holocaust death trains as well
as to the Blitz Evacuations, is comparable to this idea that "the camps
revealed an environment where common human characteristics were driven
to their extreme but never beyond the universally human." The "judgement
from which there is no appeal" -- i.e. Death -- and that mocking voice
which each potential addressee of the opening sequence hears -- "You
didn't really believe you'd be saved. ... " -- seems to be saying that,
for the individual, the ol' Grim Reaper is the ol' Grim Reaper in
whatever shape He comes. I can't happily put this into other words, and
I draw back from venturing total approbation of the type of reevaluation
of the Holocaust undertaken or advocated in GR and Todorov's book
because it really worries me that it does *seem* totally insensitive,
disrespectful, or anti-Semitic even, and it's certainly not my intention
to express such attitudes. On the other hand, I don't think people with
expertise should be vilified or prevented from expressing a legitimate
historical perspective just because they aren't Jewish, or don't have
certified victim-status, either.

As Todorov apparently does with his primary sources, Pynchon examines
the points of view and conduct of his fictional victims and tormentors
alike without beginning with a blanket assertion that all Nazis were
intrinsically evil or that all Resistance fighters were noble. Perhaps
it's simply my bias, but of all the characters in GR that Pynchon draws
for us it is not Blicero or Pokler or even Pointsman, but Major Duane
Marvy who disgusts me the most. Which is surprising in a book largely or
even partially centred on the Holocaust. Marvy is certainly an
iconoclastic characterisation of G.I. Joe, and perhaps, as someone
conjectured, Pynchon is writing about the 60s and the Vietnam War and
the atrocities reportedly committed by American soldiers there
(atrocities committed by soldiers as individuals), and merely
transposing this onto the WWII setting. 

Said's been under siege quite a bit in recent weeks too, I believe,
amidst accusations that his family isn't really Palestinian as he claims
they are in a recent biog., or something like that.

Thanks for your courteous and considered reply.

best