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

[jporter]

> From: Doug Millison <millison at online-journalist.com>
> Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 09:33:09 -0700
> 
> 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,

I'm not sure I understand "reduces anything to anything," but I'll tell you
for the record that it seems to me that your reading of the opening does
reduce The Holocaust (whatever that means here) to "the status of a symbol
or a metaphor in the novel," and, that I find such a reading distasteful and
unsettling, yet to some degree accurate, though certainly not primary.

I could speculate about the creative process of the opening and say that the
author may have recognized that it was an artistic failure, wrestled with
it, and then decided to let it stand, anyway, as a monument to the
impossibility of reaching "Absolute Zero" a reminder, as much to himself as
anyone, that there is an unbridgeable gap between language and reality- but
such would be pure speculation on my part.

  
>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.

Ideally, for me, response comes first, and then interpretation- i.e.,
interpretation of "my" response, which I try to share. That seems the best
way to at least demonstrate self-respect, while not to having to worry about
"commanding" anything from anyone.
 
> 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.

I read it as a reference to me, because I was offended by the failed use of
The Holocaust as a metaphor. If you go back and check you'll see that I also
entertained the notion that Pynchon writes for the elite, and much of his
"bashing" of elites seems designed to appeal to a certain masochistic
element within the elite who enjoy a good spanking. Further, you might come
across a post of mine suggesting that for the price of the book, GR could be
read as a manual for the continued exercise of control, a grammer of
control. I believe I asked, somewhat rhetorically, how many from the
preterite classes could one expect to see carrying around a novel of
Pynchon, inspite of all the encyclopedic references to the preterite
therein? Someone, Rich I think, replied that he had seen a prol with a copy
of GR under his arm once, but that single example seemed to make my case.

I'm not really sure where to fit in Alex Cockburn.

I do think there are redeeming aspects of the opening, however. One being,
as noted, the courage not to avoid trying the impossible. I do not think rj
was setting up straw men any more than you were setting up straw "lesser"
artists, who sit in there straw studies and write straw books containing
straw metaphors of The Holocaust.

>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 can't speak for rj, but I have not seen anything in his posts which I
could interpret as a denial of the reality of The Holocaust. Whether there
are direct references to The Holocaust in GR or not, is open for debate, but
that debate has nothing to do with the Real Holocaust. To deny references to
The Holocaust in GR is as meaningless an exercise in rhetoric as to insist
on their presence. To conflate the denial of such references in GR with
denial of the real Holocaust is to demean The Real Victims.

> 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.

It is not a question of whether GR can support multiple interpretations, but
whether multiple responses to GR can be tolerated without some people
becoming offended, as if the book were more than a work of fiction.

I'll stop here. I think you get my gist.

jody