Fwd: Re: Chasing ... Cutting

[Otto Sell]

A L L I E D  C L E A R I N G  H O U S E  T E C H N I C A L  U N I T S
N O R T H E R N  G E R M A N Y

Best gals (especially) and dudes . . .

>They are part of a much LARGER message, which supercedes any single
historical event.<

Absolutely right -
I was just answering to the line in jbor's post that Pynchon did some
"overtly Holocaust-denial" and tried to explain why I believe that the
historical extermination of six million Jews by my grandfathers is well
mentioned, though not clearly spoken out in the novel. But contrary to Doug
I don't believe that it's a major topic, but cannot, shouldn't and won't be
unconsiderated because our knowledge of the holocaust is there and cannot be
eliminated (sorry for the expression).
But jbor has explained the filtered perception in the meantime.

I'm talking about this sentence and this opinion is wrong in my opinion:
"This is overtly Holocaust-denial; it is Pynchon foregrounding Blicero's
(and, earlier, Katje's) putative knowledge of and complicity in acts of
Jewish genocide. But along with the denial is the psychological explanation
of it ... an attempt by Pynchon to ameliorate" (28.08.2000) - I was just
disturbed by some words, "denial" and "ameliorate" which, I believe, are not
accurate descriptions of what I've read in the novel in question.

I see nothing bad in any of the posts in the archives - just different, very
elaborated opinions from different people and wish we could stop calling
each other things like . . . (inappropriate words, wrong names, insulting
translations) and leave the urogenital tract to the passages in the text
where it belongs.

I don't paint jbor (remember some very good posts, sometimes I agreed,
sometimes not) or anybody on this list in any corner, much flaming results
"imho" from misunderstandings and I wish Terrance would post again and Stacy
would stay and let us take a look into his well-thumbed and aged critical
volumes.

>I can accept the possibility of this interpretation of the opening sequence
but I still find it problematic.<

Fine - I will never say that "my" (insofar as it is "mine," which is a
critical
expression in itself) reading is the better or only one.

>OK. But run with this insight a little further. To what uses are Pirate's
special talent being put by the War Office? <

To "Their" use - his talent as human "electronic monk" are glimpses from
*The Other Side*.  -  Pirate, Mexico, Pointsman, Weissmann, Enzian,
Tchitcherine, Pöckler, Bland - they're all working for "Them" - don't forget
Rathenau, the economical organizer of WW-One. And "the Nazi chain of
command" is falling out of favour itself in "Their" eyes and Weissmann has
never been a Nazi for ideological reasons. After the war the death-oriented
power will move to America and Russia.

>Perhaps Pirate's actual sleeping dreams are of a different timbre to the
conscious gift he has nurtured<

Yes, they're dreams and in dreams things from both sides get mixed-up.

>if this is Pirate *intercepting* the dreams of the Jewish prisoners it
means that they *aren't* having them
at all<

Maybe in a dream this is different too, maybe he just looks.

Otto

PS . . . strictly logical this is denying the uniqueness of the Holocaust
too:
"Wer immer auch nur ein einziges Leben rettet, hat gehandelt, als hätte er
die ganze Welt gerettet; wer immer auch nur ein einziges Leben zerstört, hat
gehandelt, als hätte er die ganze Welt zerstört. - TALMUD" (quoted by Erich
Fromm, who is discussing murder, mass murder, rituals, sacrifices, s & m in
The Art of Loving.)