pynchon-l-digest V2 #1662

[Paul Mackin]

Does not jbor's able and nonhysterical characteriization of two investigative
reporting  type books recently discussed on the p-list have a fairly wide
application in book publishing today? A competent and even sometimes scholarly
set of research findings will be marketed as something revealing deep dark
shocking secrets about America. Neither of the books in question is a schlock
book.  Within them somewhere the meaning and context of the findings will be
amply put in focus. The words on the dust jacket however may suggest a different
thing entirely.

                        P.


jbor wrote:

> ----------
> >From: Doug Millison <millison at online-journalist.com>
>
> > rj:
> >>The line of argument goes something like
> >>this: establish a connection between a company (eg IBM), a political figure
> >>or family (eg the Bushes), or indeed a critic (eg Paul de Man) or literary
> >>interpretation, and Nazism, and in that way you will discredit them for all
> >>perpetuity.
> >
> >
> > Actualy, there's no need for anyone to "establish a connection" (if
> > by that you mean, create a connection that wasn't obvious, or somehow
> > construct a connection through rhetorical or literary-critical
> > argument) here -- in the case of IBM, it was the company itself that
> > entered into a business agreement with the Nazis, for profit, a
> > matter of historical record.
>
> By the same method of argument one could note that the Allied Governments
> entered into a political agreement with the Nazis (at Munich on 29.9.38,
> say), for mutual benefit, a matter of historical record. Does it follow that
> the current British or French governments are still culpable for this
> "agreement"? The United States government's choice to remain neutral until
> 8.12.41 was similarly an "agreement" in this sense imo.
>
> The historical or "factual" component of Black's book is little more than a
> disclosure that the Nazis purchased and used IBM equipment, as far as I can
> make out. I'm not quite sure how this makes the company (certainly now, but
> even then) liable for the war crimes which were committed.
>
> I'm not a fan of Microsoft or Bill Gates and am not trying to defend them by
> the way. I just don't think that it's logical (or effective) to try to
> "tarnish today's company with its past" -- as Eric put it for example. By
> all means critique the unethical or illegal business practices which
> Microsoft engages in, or the crappy products themselves, or Gates' haircut
> and his self-satisfied nerdism; but tarring IBM (or, indeed, Bush) with some
> far-fetched "Nazi past" isn't something which seems to have them worried nor
> does it really appear to have cut the mustard with the public at large.
>
> As far as Pynchon goes, I would imagine that if something like this was his
> tactic or purpose then Wernher von Braun's sponsorship by Disneycorp would
> have been a prime target. The Disney name drips with scorn at every mention
> in Pynchon's texts, but the overwhelming focus there is on the racist
> stereotypes which were peddled as children's cartoons, rather than on the
> very visible "Nazi connection" that those programs which featured von Braun
> might evoke.
>
> Anyway, thanks for your response.
>
> best