Holocaust (Re: NP: Not to bring up a shitstorm or anything...

[jbor]

----------
>From: "Richard Romeo" <richardromeo at hotmail.com>
>

> hey foax, you know Pynchon wasn't exactly an Herrero, or a fucking dodo--you
> are trying to explain writer intention with no evidence.

The texts are the "evidence"; any interpretation of them necessarily
grapples with the issue of "writer intention" at some point, surely? Or else
why bother having *his* texts as a point of reference in the first place?

> don't know about the centrality of the holocaust, per se, but let's say
> "trauma" instead or unimaginable suffering and evil,

Why? What's your point here?

> drop terms altogether
> and forget about Pynchon's reluctance, wish, fears, etc.--we'll never
> know'em...

Pynchon: "I don't mean to make light of this (i.e. the "apocalyptic
showdown"). Our common nightmare the Bomb is in there too. It was bad enough
in '59 and is much worse now (i.e. 1984), as the level of danger has
continued to grow. There was never anything subliminal about it, then or
now. Except for that succession of criminally insane who have enjoyed power
since 1945, including the power to do something about it, most of the rest
of us poor sheep have always been stuck with simple, standard fear. I think
we all have tried to deal with this slow escalation of our helplessness and
terror in the few ways open to us, from not thinking about it to going crazy
from it. Somewhere on this spectrum of impotence is writing fiction about it
-- occasionally, as here (i.e. 'Under the Rose') offset to a more colorful
time and place." (_Slow Learner_ 18-19)

> sorry, mon. morning, fucking giants, bad coffee
> (and apologies to davemarc)
>
> respectfully,
> Rich

best