text and context (was Re: Benny's Job (2)

[jbor]

----------
>From: <davidmmonroe at yahoo.com>
>

> But speaking of Kennedy, who indeed isn't mentioned
> explicitly in TCOL49, despite the setting of the book
> and the events and apparent concerns therein.  Here's
> of course where we differ on the notion of significant
> exclusions, jbor.  I--and, in his own way,
> Hollander--might well read such glaring exclusions as
> significant in the sense of pointing TO said
> exclusion.  You--and, in his own way, Terrance--read
> them as pointing AWAY from them.

The difference (and it is a large one imo) being, perhaps, that _GR_ is set
in 1944-45 in Europe and directly narrates the wartime experience (and
precedents to same) of a diverse set of characters. Now, if _Lot 49_ were
explicitly set in mid- to late 1963, and Dallas, Texas was one of the
settings therein, and the characters or plot revolved around the White House
or Presidential roadshow or the CIA or L.H. Oswald (cf. _DeLillo's wonderful
_Libra_), then I would agree that the absence of any reference to the
assassination of JFK in the text therein would be a glaring one, and thus
significant. Such as it is then, I don't find the *complete* "absence" of
reference to those events to be either glaring or significant.

But, and I know I probably should just bite my tongue and let sleeping dogs
lie (how sad it is that what is intended as discursive engagement is
perceived as merely an attempt to "set upon" you), if we're talking about
contemporary contexts then surely the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and all those
U.S. troops jetting off Vietnamwards would more likely be the "legacy
America" in _Lot 49_ rather than _V._, wouldn't it?

I agree with what Terrance, Kai and Paul have said about Charles Hollander's
work by the way, which is not to disdain or diminish it in the least.

best