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

[Richard Romeo]

>
>
>----------
> >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?
-------
Agreed, the text is there for us.  But as you or Mr Malign put it 'Pynchon 
was possibly reluctant to write about the Holocaust in GR, or making it a 
central element due to not having directly experienced it or felt inadequate 
in addressing it,' doesn't jibe with all the other instances where he does 
directly with events where he obviosuly didn't/couldn't  witness himself, 
like the Herero killings, or the massacre of the dodos. I can understand if 
you're saying it's sure part of Pynchon's story in GR, but the Holocaust is 
not the central theme, as Pynchon's critique is more wide-ranging. But I'm 
quibbling with the reluctant or witness angle you've put forth, that's all.

>
> > 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?
----------
I suppose it's a wish to state that I beleive Pynchon's work is powerful 
because he can so sharply delineate the human capacity for such horrible 
acts, no matter American, German, British, etc. He's talking about real 
deeds, not abstractions. I suppose with the naming of an evil, we lose sight 
of the evil somehow. not sure I'm explaining myself well. sorry


Rich
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com