Open Letter to Doug and Friends

[Richard Romeo]

Quail-dude sed: I also think all these "warlike" things in full knowledge 
that we helped create this situation, and I hope that we do eventually find 
better policies than supporting lunatics merely because they are the enemies 
of our enemies. And yes, I also know about the elephant in the room, but 
until I am ready to live off the grid, I recognize that I am complicit in 
our need for oil, and I accept that responsibility. It's all part of the 
moral ambiguity of living in the real world, in  the heart of Empire.

--------------
well, I think much of the above is rooted at the heart of much of the beauty 
of Pynchon's fictions:  that deep melancholic strain running through some of 
his characters in all his books--those who come to realize how powerless we 
are as individuals living within a system that we each suck sustinence from, 
poked and prodded, used and misused (and using & misusing), weary, confused, 
and just plain disheartened by it all out there, looking at the streetlights 
from our insulated little music-filled, drugged, hothouse movie-like 
existence. We are a lot like Profane, and Zoyd and Mason and Oedipa.
There are no real answers, but small hopes I suppose.

P.S.  No one knows the full reach of the systems we live in. (As Sonic Youth 
once said about Satan)...Paranoia is Boring

Rich





>From: The Great Quail <quail at libyrinth.com>
>To: pynchon-l at waste.org
>Subject: Re: Open Letter to Doug and Friends
>Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 22:00:36 -0700
>
>Doug writes,
>
>>Great post, Quail.
>
>Thank you! I appreciate the kind words.
>
>>Nice that you chose to leave out the
>>obscenities, unlike in your private email to me in the
>>past.
>
>I didn't think that you warranted any "obscenities" this time. But
>trust me, I have no compunctions about using them, in private or
>public. (Note to List: In the past, I have called Doug nasty names
>off-list.) Our past correspondence has taught me, however, that:
>
>1. You have no qualms about using off-list mail for on-list purposes; and
>2. Any open display of angry or contemptuous emotion such as "Fuck
>you, Doug," or "That Doug is a real wanker and probably has carnal
>relations with chickens" or so on merely provides you with
>ammunition, and jacks up your moral high chair even a few more
>notches. So what's the point of getting my Irish up? It only
>increases the Doug Smugness Factor to insufferably high levels.
>
>>Silly me, to bring Pynchon up on Pynchon-L, asking
>>that we consider trying to relate the current war
>>mongering/flag waving climate in the U.S. to what
>>Pynchon has written about the War that never ends,
>
>What I am objecting to is your constant use of your interpretation of
>Pynchon as an acid test, branding your opponents with something akin
>to intellectual apostasy if they disagree.
>
>And for the record, Pynchon is just a guy. A fucking *great* writer
>with some deep insights, but I do not agree with every moral
>conclusion he makes. He has an opinion, just like any other writer. I
>for one do not feel the need to consult GR or M&D for a guide on how
>to react to this situation. (That is not to say Pynchon's insights
>have no currency for the situation; but like all art, they represent
>just one perspective.)
>
>>critique of Reagan-Bush politics in Vineland, his
>>attack on imperialism/colonialism in M&D -- all three
>>novels (not to mention V. and COL49) which speak
>>directly to the current Situation.
>
>Perhaps, though many would disagree as to the magnitude and relevance
>of certain points. But when you are met with disagreement, you get
>increasingly more shrill and strident, and it is that tone that runs
>many on this List the wrong way.
>
>>You may have missed the posts where I mentioned that I
>>have family and friends in Manhattan,
>
>I have not missed that -- nor do I see why my letter needs to take
>that into account? For the record, though, and I mean this, I am glad
>they are safe, and I hope that they are dealing with this well. It's
>been rough out here.
>
>>  close to "Ground
>>Zero" (and you gotta love that military terminology
>>that the government and press have applied to the site
>>of great human tragedy).
>
>Doug, this is a tragedy, yes. But it was not an accident. This was
>not a mistake, it was not even the random act of one or two
>nut-cases. This was an attack -- as you yourself say in a later
>paragraph. And therefore, Ground-Zero is a very appropriate term to
>use. (May I also remark it is applied to the site of any disaster,
>even natural ones?)
>
>Again, Doug -- we were deliberately *attacked.* As we were in the
>past by the Jihad, and will be again. Even if we as a nation wage
>massive peace and gather around a big tree exchanging gifts and
>singing anti-War songs, the jihad will continue.
>
>The use of military terminology is appropriate because this was an
>act of war. These people consider themselves holy soldiers.
>
>>  Just today, I pointed to a
>>web site where people can donate $ that wlll go
>>directly to pay for counseling services for victims of
>>the attacks -- I don't recall anybody else pointing
>>out such a resource, but perhaps I missed it.
>
>Sigh. Yes, Doug, you get a gold star. I for one know you are canny
>enough to mix a few items like that into your rhetoric . Boy oh boy,
>you are certainly quick enough to point it out, yes?
>
>>In the face of a barrage of posts that seek to
>>perpetuate the flag waving and echo the drumbeats to
>>war, I have excerpted and pointed to a variety of
>>alternative voices that seek to understand the
>>complexities of the current situation, and which,
>>consistently, call for non-violent solutions that
>>promise hope for lasting peace & justice.
>
>I accept that, and mentioned so in my post. Your tone, sense of
>appropriateness, and holier-than-thou attitude are all wearying,
>though, and that's what I tried to get across. Pointlessly, I know. I
>mean, you can't even argue about a sentence from a novel without
>offending people, let alone something this big and multi-faceted.
>
>>Obviously,
>>you and a few others bring your own interpretations to
>>these posts and to the voices I have thus brought to
>>the attention of the P-list.  I won't spend any time
>>at all defending the practice of opening a discussion
>>to a broad spectrum of viewpoints.
>
>Yes, I disagree with most of your ideas. I think appeasement in this
>situation is dangerous, I think we need to use force to eliminate
>terrorists, and I think we may need to tighten up national security
>for a bit in order to protect ourselves. I am currently flying an
>American Flag from my apartment, because I am indeed proud to be a
>part of this crazy country, and I feel a sense of national pride in
>the wake of this attack. You mock this, and I accept that as your
>valid opinion. In no way at all am I trying to close down, or even
>moderate, any discussion. All of us are quite familiar with this bit
>of Doug-rhetoric, where you accuse your opponents of trying to halt
>an open discussion, when all we are doing is either disagreeing with
>you, or slapping your wrists for acting like a putz.
>
>I also think all these "warlike" things in full knowledge that we
>helped create this situation, and I hope that we do eventually find
>better policies than supporting lunatics merely because they are the
>enemies of our enemies. And yes, I also know about the elephant in
>the room, but until I am ready to live off the grid, I recognize that
>I am complicit in our need for oil, and I accept that responsibility.
>It's all part of the moral ambiguity of living in the real world, in
>the heart of Empire.
>
>>Speaking of taking this occasion to grind a personal
>>axe or two, I note that you and the handful of others
>>who take this opportunity to excoriate me seem to have
>>a personal axe or two to grind as well -- you make
>>this quite clear in your post.
>
>Well, in as far as your personality and the grating way that you
>express yourself is an axe of mine, then yes, I suppose I'll grind
>that every time I disagree with your tone.
>
>>Offlist, of course, a large number of people have
>>continued to urge me to continue to post what I've
>>been posting.
>
>Yeah, yeah, and you think that David Morris doesn't have an in-box
>full of support, too? Or that my letter didn't generate a spate of
>private "right ons?"
>
>But that's besides the point -- I am not telling you to stop posting.
>I was calling attention to why the style of your postings make people
>-- including me -- angry.
>
>>They are perhaps less accustomed to
>>having the wanna-be list moderators telling the rest
>>of us what to post and how to post it.
>
>Another classic Doug-tactic: accusing everyone else of trying to be a
>moderator.
>
>>So, thanks for the feedback.
>
>Sure! No problem! I am always happy to give you feedback on your postings.
>
>>  You didn't like what I
>>posted to the P-list a few years ago, and you don't
>>like it now.  Anything else new?
>
>You know, you really sound like a little kid sometimes. You should
>edit what you send out, you really are your own worst enemy.
>
>--Quail
>--
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>The Great Quail, Keeper of the Libyrinth:
>http://www.TheModernWord.com
>
>Better hope deferred than none. Up to a point. Till the heart starts to 
>sicken.
>Company too up to a point. Better a sick heart than none. Till it
>starts to break.
>So speaking of himself he concludes for the time being,
>For the time being leave it at that.
>      --Samuel Beckett, "Company"
>


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