Somewhat NP Argentinians bound for Germany

[Dave Monroe]

... well, okay, I suspected that this was what this excahnge was about,
accustaions of Holocaust denial.  I'd just as soon let jbor answer that
charge--and I see it as a serious one--myself, I don't particularly feel the need
to prosecute the case myself, but, again, I do wonder why assertions of both the
contextual and the textual inportance of the Holocaust in, to and for Gravity's
Rainbow is so contentious here, as it seems quite obvious, at least to me, and,
apparently, others (really oghtta subscribe to that there Pynchon Notes, I guess
...).  What are the stakes at hand?  Someone, please, let me know ... me, I'm of
the opinion, let a thouand readings bloom (Harold or otherwise), and, on the
issues at hand, I think I've typed as much as my poor aching ahnds will allow me
for this evening, but ...

... but, Doug, I'm assuming you're at least referring to l'affaire Paul
DeMan--"the language of deconstruction has been used in this fashion ..."--and,
while I've not been able to read De Man's infamous wartime (occupied Belgium)
journalism (hasn't been translated, not that I've seen, at any rate, though I
imagine, maybe online--well, I'll look ...), nor did I keep up with the debate
beyond that special issue of Critical Inquiry devoted to it (okay, so I guess I
really SHOULD pick up that Responses collection the U of Nebraska Press put out),
but I don't recall anyone actually attempting to "justify" De Man's apparent
antisemitic comments.  Derrida, as I recall, in his "Like the Sound of the Sea
Deep within a Shell," attempted, with mixed results, at best, to demonstrate a
certain possible ambivalence about De Man's remarks, to give him a way out, given
the very real dangers anyone faced under the Reich, albeit perhaps without taking
that hardline one not facing such dangers has the luxury of taking in re: the
responsibility to speak out against injustice, and I believe JD emphasized other
remarks that might have counteracted to some extent the offending passages, but
... well, one really did want somebody to just say, well, De Man was in a bad
situation, he made some mistakes, he might even have held certain antisemitic
sentiments, not an unlikely thing in Europe at the time, at virtually any time,
but he went on to live a decent life, harmed no one, and, indeed, spoke out
against injustices along the way, might even have led the way in ways in which to
speak out against injustices ...

... at any rate, I don't feel that deconstruction is necessarily tainted in any
way as a result, and certainly not necessarily at the source, do recall that, not
only did De Man have his significant differences with Derrida, but that Derrida
himself, as well as other major figures at one time or another associated with
deconstruction (Geoffrey Hartman, Harold Bloom, Helene Cixous, J. Hillis Miller,
perhaps?) are Jewish themselves--which, admittedly, is not NECESSARILY a defense
against antisemitisms, either; not all women are necessarily feminist, of
whatever stripe, all men are not necessarily antifeminist, and so on ...--and
deconstruction bears no small resemblance to rabbinic reading practices which are
no doubt in its lineage (see Susan A. Handelman, The Slayers of Moses: The
Emergence of Rabbinc Interpretation in Modern Literary Theory, as well as Jose
Faur, Golden Doves with Silver Dots: Semiotics and Textuality in Rabbinic
Tradition).  I will leave open, however, the relation of deconstruction to
Heidegger, which, without being all too fluent in Heidegger, I tend to read at
first approximation as sort of Heidegger by other means, a Judaicization of
Heidegger, a substitution of, say, davar for logos.  But I'm hardly qualified to
speak "for" deconstruction, and/or deconstruction here (or anywhere else for that
matter).  But I think that might have been an irresponsible comment, made in the
line of vaguely associating antisemitism with deconsturuction with literary
criticism with jbor and his (?) "fluency" therein and what I now see to be your
allegations of his (?) Holocaust denial.  Kinda sorta weak argumentation, I'm
sure you'll admit.  But i would like to know what the anxiety over Pynchon and
the Holocaust is about here, again, seems obvious to me ...

... by the way, checking in on e-mail coming in as I'm typing this, I see that
jbor has graciously assented to my posting of his offlist comments, albeit after
the fact.  Mea culpa, both ways 'round--not only did I post them without noticing
they'd come addressed only to me, but I'd mistakenly implied that I was
communicating with him/her offlist in the first place.  And there's some other
stuff, but it'll be a bit before I can muster a response.  And, if I can't get to
it today, it might well be a couple of days, but will be back on any and/or all
of this, and then some ...