Libel (was Re: just for fun Re: pynchon-l-digest V2 #1452

[jbor]

I sort of agree. The Holocaust is unavoidably there in every reader's mind
even before opening the book; it's one of, if not the major legacy of
twentieth century history. It's just that it's *not* there in the text of
this novel set in the midst of WW II. This is perplexing -- a dilemma which
draws the reader and his or her pov and preconceptions about the War vis a
vis the Holocaust into the text. Considering the time period, and Pynchon's
ardent historicity, surely the Holocaust is *the* example, we ask ourselves.
Isn't it? So, how come it isn't here? What's the story?

The Hereros and dodoes operate as examples of other campaigns of systematic
extermination (as also is William Slothrop marching those trusting Gadarene
swine to slaughter), and constantly remind us of the Holocaust, certainly,
but the text depicts each of these historical and commercial acts of
genocide *in its own right*, and resists turning them into "motifs". Even in
the Kinderofen routine, with all the allusive opportunities of imprisonment
and oven and murder and smoke, no explicit connection with the Holocaust is
made, either by the characters or by any detached narrative agency.

What *is* an "implied example", if not also an "absence"?

I believe that there are sound literary *and* historical reasons for this
deliberate *absence* of the Holocaust from the novel.

best


----------
>From: Dedalus <dedalus204 at mediaone.net>


> jbor writes:
> Hiroshima, the decimation of the Hereros, and the extermination of the
> dodoes (which are
> depicted in GR), and the Jewish genocide, Stalinist purges or massacres
> of
> Nth Amerindians (which are not depicted) are not part of "the
> Holocaust."
>
>  . . . But wouldn't the Hereros and the dodoes function, from a literary
> standpoint, as examples of an extermination and/or annihilation motif in
> GR that, for all practical purposes, is suggestive of  historical
> organized extermination LIKE the Holocaust?
>
> I agree that the Holocaust is not the "center" of GR, but there are
> enough examples of *systematic annihilation* throughout the text to
> suggest that the Holocaust can be an implied example (if, at least,
> because of the time period of the novel).
>
> Besides, GR is sooo filled with ambiguities that to include "The
> Holocaust" in a any prominent way would have made readers (then AND
> today) "take sides" too easily regarding what the author was trying to
> say regarding control, paranoia, human relationships, etc.  The
> Holocaust is way too obvious a black & white topic to serve Pynchon's
> more subtle needs as the author of a text steeped in ambiguity. Too
> touchy, too real, and too obviously prejudicial a topic, or as nohed36
> pointed out earlier today in a post:
>
> The room went quiet, and someone started talking  about web design.  An
> old pal pulled me aside.  "You know, it's kind of a  common knowldge
> rule, as soon as anyone brings up the nazis or the holocaust  or any of
> that crap, the conversation has just been killed.  No one wants to hear
> it.  Just thought I'd let you know."
>
> Yet, in a text that demonstrates systematic extermination as it does,
> the Holocaust IS there --- if perhaps only by implication.
>
> Dedalus
>