pynchon-l-digest V2 #1449

[Doug Millison]

I assert that rj's rhetoric in this thread carries echoes of 
Holocaust denier rhetoric. Here I offer a description of that 
rhetoric as characterized by author Deborah Lipstat and give brief 
examples of how rj's arguments echo the rhetoric that Lipstat 
describes.  Feel free to disagree with my comparison or 
interpretation.

"These works demonstrate how deniers misstate, misquote, falsify statistics
and falsely attribute conclusions to reliable sources. They rely on books
that directly contradict their arguments, quoting in a manner that
completely distorts the authors' objectives. Deniers count on the fact that
the vast majority of readers will not have access to the documentation or
make the effort to determine how they have falsified or misconstrued
information."
--from Deborah Lipstat's book _Denying the Holocaust_, as quoted in 
The Hon. Mr. Justice Gray's 11 April 2000 judgement in the suit by 
David Irving against Penguin books and Lipstat, wherein Gray found 
against Irving, a Holocaust denier.

It's also a fair description of the way rj has argued his points in 
the long thread about whether or not the Holocaust might be said to 
play a "central" role in Gravity's Rainbow, where rj's argument can 
be characterized by the rhetorical moves that Lipstat describes in 
her book. (Or, see his quibbling, selectively quoted definition of 
the Holocaust in his most recent post, as he, once again, seems to 
seeks to portray Pynchon as a Holocaust denier.)

Lipstat:
"These works demonstrate how deniers misstate, misquote, falsify statistics
and falsely attribute conclusions to reliable sources."

rj denying, then continuing to minimize the presence of the Holocaust 
in GR, for example. Quoting GR re Weissmann and Enzian without 
acknowledging Pynchon's repeated characterization of Enzian as 
"child" and "boy" in those passages, & etc. ad nauseum.

Lipstat:
"They rely on books that directly contradict their arguments, quoting 
in a manner that
completely distorts the authors' objectives."

See rj's selective quotation of books that he's referred to in the 
course of this thread to support his arguments. I doubt, for example, 
that Taylor, in his conclusions about the causes of the War, 
exonerates Hitler or Germany, but rj has quoted Taylor several times 
in a way that seems to put the blame for the war on countries that 
Hitler attacked. Perhaps even more to the point, this aspect of the 
rhetorical strategy described by Lipstat also characterizes the way 
that rj quotes GR to demonstrate his strange notion that Pynchon has 
somehow suppressed or minimized the presence of the Holocaust in GR, 
despite the countless direct references and allusions to the 
Holocaust throughout the novel and its significance to the novel's 
plot and sub-plots.  I can't imagine that Pynchon would approve of 
rj's distortion of the novel in which he (Pynchon)  so clearly traces 
out causes and so effectively demonstrates effects of the Nazi 
Holocaust to create such emotional and philosophical impact.

Lipstat:
"Deniers count on the fact that the vast majority of readers will not 
have access to the documentation or make the effort to determine how 
they have falsified or misconstrued
information."

One can only suppose that rj counts on pynchon-l readers (assuming 
any remain for this increasingly tiresome thread) to forget from one 
day to the next what's actually been said in this thread, what he has 
actually said in his posts. Otherwise he wouldn't evade or equivocate 
or prevaricate about what he's said so often, or so blatantly lie in 
his restatement of others' posts.

Prevaricate \Pre*var"i*cate\, v. i. [imp. & p. p.
    {Prevaricated}; p. pr. & vb. n. {Prevaricating}.] [L.
    praevaricatus, p. p. of praevaricari to walk crookedly, to
    collude; prae before + varicare to straddle, fr. varicus
    straddling, varus bent. See {Varicose}.]
    1. To shift or turn from one side to the other, from the
       direct course, or from truth; to speak with equivocation;
       to shuffle; to quibble; as, he prevaricates in his
       statement.

             He prevaricates with his own understanding. --South.

    2. (Civil Law) To collude, as where an informer colludes with
       the defendant, and makes a sham prosecution.

    3. (Eng. Law) To undertake a thing falsely and deceitfully,
       with the purpose of defeating or destroying it.

    Syn: To evade; equivocate; quibble; shuffle.

    Usage: {Prevaricate}, {Evade}, {Equivocate}. One who evades a
           question ostensibly answers it, but really turns aside
           to some other point. He who equivocate uses words
           which have a double meaning, so that in one sense he
           can claim to have said the truth, though he does in
           fact deceive, and intends to do it. He who
           prevaricates talks all round the question, hoping to
           ``dodge'' it, and disclose nothing.

Prevaricate \Pre*var"i*cate\, v. t.
    To evade by a quibble; to transgress; to pervert. [Obs.]
    --Jer. Taylor.

To see how this might apply to rj, simply read his post about 
Neufeld's The Rocket and the Reich -- a book rj obviously hasn't 
read, but instead chooses to challenge in the words of an Internet 
book review -- in digest V2 #1449 and compare it to the way rj 
previously argued against the characterization of Dora rocket workers 
as slaves. He's talking out of both sides of his mouth, apparently 
"so that in one sense he can claim to have said the truth, though he 
does in fact deceive, and intends to do it"  and he "talks all round 
the question, hoping to ``dodge'' it, and disclose nothing."

rj's complaint about my "ad hominem" attacks are touching. Until you 
realize that I haven't called him any names, but have instead 
demonstrated how his rhetoric works like that of Holocaust deniers. 
Read back through a few of his posts of recent days and see what he's 
had to say about me for an object lesson in ad hominem attack.

Malign uses the same rhetorical strategies, of course, although he 
lacks rj's hallucinatory verbosity, and instead tends to stick to a 
rather spare, no-frills style of lying, and Three Stooges insult.

-- 

d  o  u  g    m  i  l  l  i  s  o  n  <http://www.online-journalist.com>