Holocaust as metaphor? (is also Re: answering jody

[jporter]

> From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
> Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 08:25:31 +1100

> ----------
>> From: <jp4321 at IDT.NET>

>> I think a lesser artist would have shied away from such an offensive
>> juxtaposition.
> 
> I suppose I agree. The term "juxtaposition" effectively sidesteps the
> distinction between text and metatext, but I still think it's a distinction
> which needs to be made. My point was that if it's simply a "metaphoric
> allusion" operating at the level of the narrative then The Holocaust has
> been appropriated by Pynchon to exemplify Slothrop's tastebuds.

I think there is a significant difference between the opening and the candy
drill. Although there is a "he" in the opening, the pov is blurred, it is
third person, but more universal. All the echelons, preterite as well as
"green-stained VIP faces remembered behind bulletproof windows, are being
"carried out to salvation." No one is excluded, apparently, and there are
hints that this will include the reader: "Each has been hearing a voice, one
he thought was talking only to him..." This is the end. The twin references
to lead and iron can be read as suggesting the end of the line for both
processes of the star cycle: fisson and fusion, from which all the heavier
elements of the periodic table have been formed, upon which life depends-
truly the end. The ghosts of rats as cave painting suggests evolution and
the origination of culture and language, i.e., humanity. Mammals got their
big break when another screaming came across the sky wiping out t. rex and
company. "It has happened before..." This is the other shoe. No shinola.

I think the evidence for reference to The Holocaust, also, is credible. But
this coming disaster, it seems to me, is a subjunctive holocaust, a
vaticination, the product of a still uncertain future- conditional and more
universal. The scene appears to be Pirate's dream. The Holocaust was not so
universal, nor, in retrospect, can its reality be considered conditional.
There was no waking from a bad dream, no book that could be closed and set
down, and life resumed. I am not a Holocaust survivor, nor are any of my
direct relatives. None of us were ever gassed or worked or starved to death
because of our race or creed or any other accident of birth, by a determined
group of murderers. Although my father risked his life as a tail gunner in
an allied bomber over occupied europe, he volunteered- big difference.

It would be easy for me to forgive the author for generalizing what is
ungeneralizeable to enhance his art, to underscore the seriousness of his
work, and to recognize the courage of his choices. But I do not feel
comfortable doing that, and maybe that's the point.

The holocaust of the candy drill, however, is much more to my taste. This is
vintage Pynchon and can stand up to a vintange Rothschild any day. No one
owns language, is at least part of the point. It is an act of remembrance,
as well, linked to the dandelion wine scene in Lot 49 (thanks, Max). But it
can stand completely on its own. The humor is undeniable and works perfectly
well all by itself. Now that we know the deeper connections, however, there
can never be laughter without tears. To the victims of unspeakable horror,
Pynchon has given voice.

Of course, as usual, I prefer my own interpretation: the hidden reference to
Terry Southern's Candy being simultaneously drilled by her diapered father
and the inanimate buddha, but then, as Ralph Wayvone, Jr. well knows, there
is no accounting for taste. We all see the world through different windows.


>> The novel is filled with contradictions, some contained in
>> set pieces, some spread out over the length of the novel. Slothrop comforts
>> a young victim of a rocket strike.
> 
> More that the young victim is comforted by Slothrop's presence. He can't
> actually do anything, feels like an "idiot"; he doesn't even have any gum
> for her, only that Thayer's Slippery Elm (anyone ever had this? it sounds
> disgusting -- like Fishermen's Friends? -- and has a sort of resonance with
> the Candy Drill episode later), for which she is humbly and poignantly
> grateful even so. (I could almost read an allegory of the belated American
> entry into WWII in this, supposedly rescuing the 'pride of Britain' but not
> really -- just substituting one sort of candy in place of another, really --
> in this little setpiece.)

That he tries inspite of his awkwardness and high risk of failure says
something, similar perhaps to the message I get from the author's attempts
in the opening scene.

>> Later, he fucks and deserts Bianca.
> 
> "Fucks and deserts", or "is fucked and deserted by"? Is there a difference?
> Is it important?

She certainly fucks him, We are stuck in his head, primarily, and can't be
sure of her motivations. Later he is in a panic, on the slippery deck, as he
seems to lose her trail. Whether manipulated or not, he seems upset, and we
are told he has joined the ranks of Pilate, by not staying with her. Was it
all predestined? 
 
jody