pynchon-l-digest V2 #1424

[jbor]

This one, of course, is where he shows his true colours.

millison:

> Pynchon the author of GR is the one who has complicated Enzian's love
> for Weissmann/Blicero with complex colonial and sadomasochistic power
> dynamics and other unhealthy psychological baggage.

'Cept you haven't been able to provide a single textual reference to
illustrate this.

> I expect that
> you'll be able to see it in the text, one of these days, just as you
> were gradually able to recognize Pynchon's depictions of the
> Holocaust that you earlier denied were present in GR.

I asked, early on, when you were claiming that a depiction of the Holocaust
was the main point of the entire novel: "We readin' the same book, fella?"
You have used that one throwaway line now about a dozen or more times to
calumniate me -- by your own identification of the way *you* register *your*
ad hominem attacks -- as a Holocaust-denier and neo-Nazi.

> As a loving spouse in a 17-year-and-going-strong interracial and
> intercultural marriage, and as a person who has worked and continues
> to work for social justice -- contributing time, work, and even a
> little bit of hard-earned cash -- I reject your  identification of my
> views with apartheid.

In your scheme of things, millison, what options did *Enzian* have?

Try to entertain a post-colonialist view for a moment. Pynchon does.

> After your paranoid meltdown last year, and
>> your vicious assault on myself and other individuals in this forum in
>> recent months, I suggest that you find a counselor you can talk with
>> and begin to come to terms with the various pathologies that seem to
>> dominate your attempts at communication with your fellow human beings.

Seems that "Terrance" -- or our friend crazy Jane as he sometimes prefers to
be known from that .uk email address which was created for the express
purpose of ... what, millison? ... a hoax? ... never! -- has given the lie
to these nasty little attempts at character assassination as well.

By the way, I don't know about anyone else but I haven't understood very
much in "Terrance's" last three posts at all. I know that he is capable of
editing his prose when he wants, as "Ophilia ... " and some of his other,
nastier guises have demonstrated. "Discussion of the novel", let alone
"serious", or even *basic* "attempts at communication"? I think I'll let
"Terrance" speak for himself to show what he thinks of his interlocutors on
this list, and the discussion which has been generated over the past 15
months:

> I have alas! quite given up all thoughts of discussing this
> novel here.

And I'll certainly leave it up to others than yourself or he to decide the
worth and integrity of my contributions to the discussion.



>>