Keyser Soze / Doug and Terrance

[Phil Wise]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mackin" <paul.mackin at verizon.net>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 10:53 PM
Subject: Re: Keyser Soze / Doug and Terrance


>
> On Kelly's column
>
> Name calling: Yes.
>
> Analysis: You can't do much analysis in a newspaper column
>
> Coherent point: The peace activists' advice to avoid use of military power
> in the present situation is something that can be offered with complete
> impunity only because there's no chance in Hell that anybody in authority
> will follow it and that in Kelly's opinion this may be just as reassuring
> (deep down) to the peace activists as to any other American.
>
> Do I think this point is valid: Yes.
>
> Do I think all pacifists are fools and fanatics: No.
>
> Does Kelly think so: I'm not sure. Wouldn't be surprised.

You may well be right, but I'd comment that Kelly's absolute antipathy to
his subjects suggests that he is in no position to convincingly devine their
deep psychological fears and comforts.  In other words, if Kelly's stumbled
upon a truth, he's done it by guesswork, possibly based upon a stereotypical
picture he has in his head about the character of the people he's slagging
off.  The actual truth will remain objectively hidden until he does that
analysis I talked about, you know, get some facts, look at what people are
actually saying and why and how they are saying it, all that stuff that
journalists are sposed to do.  Till then it is prejudiced hackwork, and, as
I said, fuck him.

phil
>
> P.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phil Wise" <philwise at paradise.net.nz>
> To: "Paul Mackin" <paul.mackin at verizon.net>; <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 3:41 AM
> Subject: Re: Keyser Soze / Doug and Terrance
>
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Paul Mackin" <paul.mackin at verizon.net>
> > To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 9:17 AM
> > Subject: Re: Keyser Soze / Doug and Terrance
> >
> >
> > > > Judy Panetta wrote: (copied from Terrance's post since original
never
> > came
> > > to my mailbox)
> > > > >
> > > > > Kelly as nostalgic for the sixties..? Let me preface this
> explanation
> > > that I
> > > > > wrote this as a first impression on reading this article. So
forgive
> > me
> > > > > folks, if I do not have the research usually warranted here.
> > > > >
> > > > > But let me try...there is in Kelly's article a tone that I found
> > > reminiscent
> > > > > of the rhetoric of the "conservatives" in the sixties-early
> seventies.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Kelly definitely styles himself a conservative. Doubt if I knew of his
> > > existence until he came to the Post as one of their op-ed page
> > conservatives
> > > (to preside along side George Will). I've never read him at all
> regularly
> > > but associate him with the "right wing conspirary against the
Clintons"
> as
> > > it's called..  Very abrasive in style. He was born in 1957 so would
have
> > > come to life at the time Reagan's 80s conservativism was in flower.
> > Religion
> > > and politics. Culture wars. Would guess Kelly's view of both sides of
> the
> > > culture wars would be negative. Actually I've no idea on how he feels
> > about,
> > > say, abortion rights. But in any event I would guess Goldwater's
earlier
> > 60s
> > > conservatism would have held more appeal as something to look back
upon.
> > > Maybe this ties is with what Judy saw.  Tough guy, no nonsense, keep
the
> > > government out of my business (and bedroom if he'd thought about it)
and
> > out
> > > of the rest of the world . Libertarian. By the way, remember it wasn't
> the
> > > conservatives who were pushing the Vietnam war. It was the liberals.
> > > Kennedy, Johnson. Anyway, now I'll read Mr. K. more assiduously.
> > >
> > >         P.
> >
> >
> > http://www.dailyhowler.com/h100301_1.shtml
> >
> > Since this link above has some pretty sharp things to say about Mr Kelly
> and
> > possibly by implication his readers, I'll preface this by saying my
> posting
> > of it is in no way designed reflect on Paul.  But I saw no analysis in
> > Kelly's column, just name calling, which seems to be more or less the
main
> > tool the "right" has employed against the "left" lately.  And this guy's
> > analysis of mainstream punditry is usually pretty tight.
> >
> > And since Kelly's managed to bring what I'd prefer not to call
> > "anti-globalisation" into it ("much of what is passing for pacifism in
> this
> > instance is not pacifism at all but only the latest tedious
manifestation
> of
> > a well-known pre-existing condition: the largely reactionary, largely
> > incoherent, largely silly muddle of anti-American, anti-corporatist,
> > anti-globalist sentiments that passes for the politics of the left these
> > days"), an utterly dishonest spew (hey, I think he's talking about me,
> fuck
> > him, he could at least not generalise me out of existence), I'll go
along
> > with the critique even though its claims for the lack of genuine
pacifists
> > in America is wrong, although it is funny that nobody can name them, it
> > seems.
> >
> > phil
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>