answering otto Re: pynchon-l-digest V2 #1590

[Thomas Eckhardt]

Dave,

> Thomas: I think you know the great esteem in which I hold you here, so
> I'm hoping I can feel safe in saying to you, at least, you are wrong in
> singling out Doug here.  This melee has, indeed, been a group effort,
> one which I, along with virtually every currently regular poster, have
> participated in as well.  Sometimes at least with some respect to the
> decorum of a scholarly argument here, but, if not just as often, rather
> more glaringly, not.  It takes at LEAST two to tangle, the protagonist
> (oops, spoiler warning) of Fight Club notwithstanding ..

IMHO the discussion about Holocaust references and their significance in GR
- a very interesting topic, by the way - turned into what we are in now at
the precise moment Doug interpreted rj's refusal to accept the Holocaust as
an organizing structural principle of the whole novel as a denial of the
historical reality of the Holocaust. Paul Mackin immediately pointed to the
huge difference between referring to a fictional representation and
referring to historical reality. To no avail. You yourself expressed some
mild irritation, although you generally agreed with Doug on the issue of the
importance of Holocaust references in GR.

Holocaust denial is a very serious accusation, in my opinion, and quite
understandably rj didn't take it lightly.

> But my "excuse," such as it isn't, will no doubt be that of anyone
> involved.  I fell compelled, by virtue of, not only "deliberate"--I will
> not go so far as to say "criminal," as I'm generally used to a legal
> system in which "misrepresentations" are "criminal" insofar as they
> cause actual harm, or are offered in the course of a legal proceding,
> and I will not say "stupid" as I honsestly don't think any of us here
> are any more "stupid" than I am, at least--"confusions of" both
> "fictional representation and historical reality" and of historical
> reperesentation and the realities of various fictions, as well as the
> "deliberate ... misreadings of other people's"--not to mnention my own,
> as I gently but firmly point out from time to time--"posts," and
> "libellous"--though, again, I will note the legal overtones
> here--"allegations against," for starters, myself, not to mention Doug.

I was referring to the very specific confusion of "fictional representation"
and "historical reality" that leads Doug to believe rj is denying the
Holocaust.

I wasn't aware of the fact that I was using terminology generally reserved
for the realm of legal proceedings. I should have been. Instead of
"libellous" I would then have written "slanderous", instead of "allegations"
I'd have written "accusations" or "charges".

> Now, without wnating to, much less being authorized to, speak for Doug
> here, I will note that I can undersatnd why he's found it difficult to
> stand down here, as, even when he's only posting those useful and
> interesting bits he does bring to our attention, people are insulting
> him gratuitously (and when isn't an insult "gratutitous"?), to the point
> of using his name perjoratively ("millisonically").  There are
> characterizations to caricatures to ("deliberate"?) misrepresentations
> of what he's posted here being reproduced ridiculed, and, in the
> meantime, I've been attacked, for starters, merely for agreeing in
> outline (I obviulsy hold my own opinions on how text, textuality,
> language function) with reading that Otto later offered as well, that I
> believe JBFRAME offered supporting evidence for, that ... well, I don't
> appreciate it anymore than he does, anymore than anyone, Doug, jbor,
> kai, woever, else would ...

I am aware of all this and have sometimes publicly objected to the way Doug
was harrassed during the last few months. Kai and rj should have left this
alone. Nevertheless, I believe the initial and by far most severe insult
came from him, and when I realized that he actually keeps up his absurd
accusation to the present day this left me at a loss for civilized words -
unlike Jody, whose admirably calm and considerate posting I read after
having hit the "Send"-button.

> "Everything else followed," indeed, "as if it was ordained," but in
> actuality as it might well be expected to follow amongst a highly
> intelligent, but nonetheless highly charged, and, in some cases, highly
> competetive (though I wouldn't call myself "highly" so) group of people
> who largely know each other only onscreen, who do not have to see, or
> suffer, or otherwise be held responsible for the effects of what they
> post.  Someone suggested not too long ago that things might be rather
> different here (in either direction, perhaps) were we all within fist's
> reach of each other.  Someone also mentioned "too much testosterone,"
> but ...

The phrase was intended as a reference to M&D, 615 (actually it is: "All
else will follow as if predestin'd, unto War and Devastation."). I quoted
from memory. By alluding to this passage I meant to describe a Bad History
of "war and devastation", brought about by one single act of drawing a line.
In the end, of course, everybody's hands are bloody.

But fortunately this is just a metaphor.

Thomas