Crownshaw's PN article

[Dave Monroe]

I don't see Pynchon, or anyone here, for that matter, as in any way exploiting,
much less making light of, the Holocaust.  Indeed, I think it is precisely
because of such concerns that Gravity's Rainbow often deals with it obliquely,
tangentially, allusively, whatever, precisley in order not to exploit it for,
say, pathos, gravity, even, much elss to reduce it to the often comical,
farcical, ludicrous, even, goings on.  Cf. Hiroshima, which also not only looms
over the novel--that apocalyptic, intercontinentally ballistic sword of Damocles
hanging over the end of the novel, a novel which begins with an (ironic, to say
the least, in context, in just about any context one can provide for it)
epigraph from Nazi rocket scientis Wernher von Braun, father of the delivery
platform--but which is, in turns, mentioned explicitly by name, clearly referred
to in a newspaper fragment, and put in touch with Pynchon's many, many allusive
networks (here, astrology, the liturgical calendar).  I do see some exhibiting a
certain anxiety about discussing it, perhaps even trying to bypass the subject
entirely, writing it off as irrelevant and perhaps even offensive (that'd be
you, jbor).  I've no idea why, but I've even less an idea of why you'd want to
discourage anyone else from at least considering the subject.  If you feel your
time and/or memory is being wasted, well, just ignore and/or delete the relevant
messages, is all.  Why dump on others for pusrsuing a perfectly reasonable,
perfectly relevant, and, to my mind, perfectly interesting line of inquiry here?

jbor wrote:

> I agree with Paul. There is something very tenuous about readings such as
> Crownshaw's. I don't think the relevant comparison is of *GR* and a work
> like *Dune*, but of, say, *Catch-22* and *GR*. I think there is an enormous
> difference between Heller's (Mennippean?) satire in the former and Pynchon's
> historical novel (which incorporates elements of satire but is more than
> that as well). For someone as acutely aware of audience, purpose and context
> (that holy trinity of "deconstructionist" pedagogy) as Pynchon obviously is
> -- and not just his own audience(s), purposes(s) and context(s), but the
> audience, purpose and context of the mass-published novel in late
> capitalist/US society -- I really can't see him using the suffering and
> horror of the Holocaust (or of the actual fighting and killing being done by
> soldiers in WWII) to earn profit, laughs or kudos for himself. Others, like
> Heller, have done this, of course, and that's where Pynchon's "allegory" of
> the tourists (which always enacts a reader-persona in my reading of Pynchon)
> being led to the Dora camp by some sideshow shyster takes on its reflexive
> tenor and is not at all what Crownshaw attempts to turn it into. It's also
> why I don't think Pynchon'd be using the Argentine sub. episode for cheap
> laughs.
>
> And, in fact, I see it as being something extremely shameful that there are
> those who would attempt ride the Holocaust pony to lit crit and
> discussion-list credibility.
>
> best
>
> ----------
> >From: Paul Mackin <pmackin at clark.net>
> >To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> >Subject: Re: Crownshaw's PN article
> >Date: Tue, Aug 8, 2000, 9:59 PM
> >
>
> > I read the article. I had tried to put myself in the correct frame of mind
> > for left perspective litcrit and think I got the basic jist of the
> > thing although I'm no adept in such matters. You have to realize that the
> > short paper was a mere speculation upon a speculation that just maybe
> > (possibly) there might be some way to interpret certain passages in  GR
> > as having an allegorical meaning (literal meanings would be useless) that
> > might serve in some kind of a rehistoricization of the
> > Holocaust--in other words give it a demonstrable link to the American
> > Military Industrial Complex. Of course I may have missed the whole point
> > but sincerely doubt it.
> snip