answering jody Re: pynchon-l-digest V2 #1582

[Doug Millison]

Jody, thanks for your follow-up.  I believe it's obvious that Pynchon 
uses the Holocaust as a metaphor in GR, and I don't believe that this 
is offensive, although I don't doubt that  other works that use the 
Holocaust as symbol or metaphor  might be considered offensive. I 
think the use of the word "relegated" in the phrase "relegated the 
Holocaust to the status of a symbol or metaphor in his novel" burdens 
this comment with unnecessary negative connotations, as does the use 
of the word "reduced" in "reduced its historical/moral significance 
to equal that of the Evacuation of Londoners during the Blitz." I 
don't think Pynchon reduces anything to anything in GR, instead 
Pynchon packs so much into the novel that he leaves it wide open to 
readers to bring all sorts of responses and make all sorts of 
interpretations,  more or less far-fetched, more or less likely to 
command agreement and respect.

I read this post as an assertion by rj that somebody (me, Monroe, 
Otto, etc.) who reads Holocaust references in GR's opening is making 
a reductionist argument that a more sophisticated critic (rj, I 
presume) would find offensive. That may or may not be true, but  I 
certainly don't agree that this is what I, or Monroe, or Otto have 
done.  I know for a fact that I, and Monroe, and Otto remain open to 
all sorts of interpretations of GR -- that's obvious in the many 
posts we have written about GR, when we have addressed the many other 
aspects of GR besides Nazi war crimes and Holocaust victims --  and 
that we have chosen to speak of the Holocaust references in GR 
because they are there and because, in my case at least, they seem to 
relate closely to many other themes and motifs that Pynchon plays 
with in this novel.  I'm also certain that I -- and I believe Monroe 
and Otto -- have no objection to other readers who bring different 
interpretations to GR and this material.  (But I don't believe 
there's anything wrong in refuting statements such as "the Holocaust 
is absent from GR" by pointing to the Holocaust references and 
allusions in GR -- which is where this whole argument began.)  I'm 
quite happy to listen to and consider the interpretation of the 
screaming as Gottfried's. Is that  more or less far-fetched than 
reading  the Evacuation as the transportation of Jews and others to 
concentration camp victims?  That's debatable, and, in my mind, worth 
debating.  Can GR support multiple interpretations, even 
interpretations that vary wildly, even mutually exclusive 
interpretations?  There's a library of books and articles that 
demonstrate that fact.

The "simplistic argument" I'm referring to is the one rj appears to 
want to attribute to Monroe, Otto, me, & etc.,

>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,

Since I don't believe Pynchon has done this ("reduced" or "relegated" 
the Holocaust to anything; instead, Pynchon might be seen to 
introduce the Holocaust-related material of the novel's WWII setting 
in a way that resonates with the other materials related to religion, 
technology, philosophy, & etc. and to thus open the novel up to many 
possible readings that relate not only to the WWII period but to the 
Cold War and Vietnam War periods that follow),  I don't agree you can 
call it "offensive," since he hasn't done it, after all.  And, again, 
we have not made this reductionist argument, no matter how many times 
rj or anybody else says so.

I'd prefer to let Crownshaw's article speak for itself.  But I will 
say that he seems to me to offer a nuanced and sensitive presentation 
about how artists might legitimately appropriate historical instances 
of trauma, and in particular how Pynchon manages to do this in GR, 
without being guilty of exploiting the trauma in a way that could be 
considered offensive.  Crownshaw seems to be saying that Pynchon does 
it in a way that helps the reader to gain some approximation -- 
relatively feeble and in no way directly comparable to the original 
trauma of course -- of the pain those Holocaust victims felt, and the 
shock Pokler experiences in his Dora encounter with those victims. 
So, yes, I believe that Crownshaw effectively demolishes the 
simplistic argument,

>  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."


I do believe that people should at least read the article before dismissing it.

You ask,

>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?

If I haven't made myself clear, No, I don't feel that rj "is accusing 
Pynchon of such reduction" -- he's been working pretty hard to make 
it appear as if Monroe, Otto, and I have done so, and that's simply 
not true.

Cordially,

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