Pynchon & rap

[Terrance]

Doug Millison wrote:
> 
> "David Morris"
> "He never "denied that Pynchon referred
> to the Holocaust in GR."
> 
> That's hogwash, too.  My assertion is easy to demonstrate, the posts are in
> the archives (and"jbor" repeated it the other day, changing his tune
> slightly to say, the Holocaust is "largely absent" from GR), but I don't
> think "David Morris" is interested in fact, it gets in the way of his
> relentless name-calling.


Here we go again? 

As S~Z would argue, I'm sure, I am the only certified
lunatic on this list. 
Charges that a person is Holocaust denier should not be made
here. 

Now, we know there is lots of textual support in GR and in
Pynchon's other books and essays that prove that P does not
support a denial of the Holocaust. 

No one has taken this position on this list. 

What does "largely absent" mean? In at least one sense this
is in fact the case. Isn't it? The War too could also be
said to be "largely absent." 
Rather than argue over the extent of its absence or presence
(Does remind me that 
Hollander's major essay is about the presence of absence),
we might try to figure out
why two readers of P have very different takes on this.
Robert has argued, and I hope he will correct me where I am
in error here, that the near absence of the Holocaust in GR
or its being "largely absent" from a novel ostensibly
"about" religion (HA!) W.W.II, is demonstrative of P's
postmodern aesthetic or whatever, he's much more articulate
on all this than I'm giving him credit for here and
certainly more so that Doug is giving him credit for, but
anyway, I think Robert has argued the same for the near
absence of Vietnam from VL and CL49 and V. the so forth for
M&D. 

The problem then becomes ideological and political. 
In this debate, Pynchon and his texts are largely ignored.
So it matters little if something is present of absent since
neither side goes to the text to solve the dispute. 
ad hominem than, rules the day. 


Is there more to the near absence than the postmodern
Pynchon? 

Doug, you mention Hollander's essays on this. Hollander
argues that the total absence from the text has greater
meaning than presence. He argues that P is something of
cryptic writer. The less P alludes to or mentions something
the greater its significance.