Humble Barbara & Serious Discourse

[Otto]

Terrance:
>
> I'm simply asking for some textual evidence.
>

GR p. 645, 9-14 maybe?

War
the real business of, 105; lives for information, 105; "electronic
components of resin and copper that the War, in its glutton, ever-nibbling
intake, has not yet found a licked back into its darkness" 119; "seventh
Christmas of the War" 126; what it really wants, 130-34; the guy who is
WWII, 131; as world revolution, 165; what war really is, 177; reconfigures
time & space, 257; "opened up things" 265: recklessness is "magnificent, but
it's not war" 345; 349; "politics between wars demands symmetry" 350; 379;
gradients of damage (poorest sectors first), 423; "the Real Text" 520; "all
theatre" 521; "sides?" 520; "There's something still on, don't call it a
'war' if it makes you nervous, maybe the death rate's gone down a point or
two [...] but Their enterprise goes on" 628; "the real War is always there"
645;
http://www.hyperarts.com/pynchon/gravity/alpha/w.html

>
> I have problems with the "Anyone who has read Pynchon can't fail to
> see...and must therefore be a fascist...and shouldn't be on this
> list..." rhetoric. First of all, it's condescending: the suggestion is
> that the person addressed has either not read Pynchon or has failed to
> read the "truth that is obviously stated in his texts."   Second, it
> discourages pluralistic participation. Third, its ad hominem. Fourth, it
> encourages more of the same.   Fifth, it shifts discussion away from the
> texts we are here to discuss.  Sixth, it discourages interlocutors from
> engaging in what might prove to  be constructive dialogue. Seventh, it
> discredits this list by  forcing more serious posters to the lurking
> sidelines and shocking new members. Eighth, time spent defending
> ourselves is time we could be spend reading  the Pynchon texts and post
> our questions, insights, thoughts, questions.
>

Absolutely agreed, Terrance.

Otto