vv (12): what weissmann's project is about

[jbor]

----------
>From: lorentzen-nicklaus at t-online.de (lorentzen-nicklaus)


>
>  "'politics is a kind of engineering, isn't it. with people as your raw
>  material.'
>  'i don't know', weissmann said." (242)

Yes: an excellent place to draw breath and some astute observations. What is
presented in this exchange between Weissmann and Mondaugen is not simply
some blinkered anti-Nazi phillipic, but rather a depiction of a more general
dynamic operating between technology and politics, how the former is
manipulable by the latter, but also how they are interdependent on one
another as well.

And while Blicero's slide down the Nazi chain of command is foregrounded
between and within the two novels, as you note, his status as legend, or
idol, or some sort of Badass-type folk hero, grows proportionately in the
other direction, amongst characters such as Katje, Enzian, Gottfried,
Mondaugen, Pokler, Greta, Thanatz, the liberated 175s et. al.

The opening statment of that 1969 Hirsch letter has some bearing on this
section too I think:

    When I wrote _V._ I was thinking of the 1904 campaign as a sort of
    dress rehearsal for what later happened to the Jews in the 30s and
    40s. Which is hardly profound; it must occur to anybody who gets into
    it even as superficially as I did. But since reading McLuhan especially,
    and stuff here and there on comparative religion, I feel now the thing
    goes much deeper.

But I think Pynchon is modest about the perceptiveness evident even in the
earlier novel.

best

>  it would have been so easy for pynchon to give the millisons among his
readers
>  food here. try "'sure, they're just wax in my hands', weissmann said" or
"'who
>  cares about people?! we're in for the german world-domination!', weissmann
>  furiously shouted". but no, it's "i don't know". what does this mean? is
>  weissmann too stupid to have a opinion on the possible parallels between
>  engineering and politics? hardly probable. perhaps we can come a little
further
>  here when we ask for the quality of weissmann's interest in politics. go to
>  page 242 again and read this: "'ever heard of d'annunzio?' then: mussolini?
>  fiume? italia irredenta? fascisti? national socialist german workers' party?
>  adolf hitler? kautsky's independents?". first thing to note here is that not
>  only hitler and mussolini are named, but also kautsky. so it's not about
right
>  or left. & then there's this mention of gabriele d'annunzio (1863-1938), the
>  italian poet who also was into politics and war (as an airforce officer); he
>  early called for leading war against the mittelmächte (in the first place:
>  germany and austria). while the also made mention of the "brennessel
[stinging
>  nettle] cabaret" could be purely folkloristic, d'annunzio's name, as well as
>  weissmann's close reading of the duino elegies, indicates a strong
fascination
>  by art, especially poetry. so blicero's interest in politics is perhaps
>  primarly aesthetically motivated in the the spirit of the avangarde movements
>  in the arts around 1910. [yes, i know benjamin's kunstwerkaufsatz]. & now
look
>  again at the page: "'from munich, and never heard of hitler,' said weissmann,
>  as if 'hitler' were the name of an avantgarde play". weissmann's project is
>  neither about the german world-domination nor is it about "ethnic cleanness".
>  his taking part keeps him socially integrated, while he kicks his black
>  romantic shit. & then he, like so many men, is fascinated by the dense male
>  energy of military units.  but is, after all, a queer rilkean s&m community
on
>  the moon really such a terrible imagination? not for me. the real danger
comes
>  from pointsman whose project is practical and just too down to earth.
>  pointman's isolated dried out sexuality, which stands in direct opposition to
>  blicero's wild one, also indicates that he, pointsman, is the one having
>  seperated from life entirely. & if blicero would really be the corporate
>  carreerist flaherty & millison want him to be, how do you explain then that
he
>  is, on page 401 of gravity's rainbow, refered to as "major weissmann"? na?!
>  "sometime between the earlie thirties and 1944, when we meet him in holland,
>  weissmann has evidently been 'busted' from major back to captain (his rank at
>  v.94.22)", as steven weisenburger notes correctly on page 195 of his
companion.
>  well, we may a speculate about the reasons for this back-busting, but this is
>  in any case highly significant, nicht wahr?
>
> kfl
>
>
>