GR opening

[jporter]

> From: Doug Millison <millison at online-journalist.com>
> Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 19:54:31 -0700
 
> rj: " But, as a number of people have now commented, the notions that Pynchon
> relegated the Holocaust to the status of a symbol or metaphor in his novel,
> or that he intentionally reduced its historical/moral significance to equal
> that of the Evacuation of Londoners during the Blitz in that opening scene,
> are, in fact, quite offensive."
> 
> In the hands of a lesser artist, perhaps, using the Holocaust as
> "symbol or metaphor" might be "offensive", but that's certainly not
> the case in GR. 

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with rj here? It is "the notions" that is
the subject of "are...offensive," no? Did you read the subject as "Pynchon"?

> At least one Pynchon scholar has anticipated and I
> think thoroughly demolished this kind of simplistic argument:
> Richard Crownshaw, in his article, "Pynchon's Holocaust Allegory", in
> Pynchon Notes 42-43, spring-fall 1998. rj has already dismissed this
> article out of hand at least once without having read it, during the
> GRGR discussion (and Mackin maginalized it with zero analysis), but I
> suggest that some of you might want to read  it and judge for
> yourselves. 

And If one were to read it, what exactly is the simplistic argument that you
think would thus be demolished in the mind of the reader?

>At any rate, since nobody, including myself, has argued
> here on Pynchon-L, during the four years I've been participating at
> least, that Pynchon has merely "reduced its [the Holocaust]
> historical/moral significance to equal that of the Evacuation of
> Londoners during the Blitz in that opening scene" -- to the contrary,
> quite a few of us have remained open to many possible readings of
> this opening scene, noting allusions to the Holocaust in only one
> among those many readings -- rj would seem to be chasing another of
> his straw men in putting forward this argument.

Again: do you feel that rj is accusing Pynchon of such reduction, or, was he
referring to those who front "the notions". Big difference. Which is it for
you?

jody