AmeriQa

[The Great Quail]

Barbara writes,

>Quail:
>>  If I did indeed think I was the center of the universe, I would
>>  perhaps speak of the List as a whole, united front standing behind
>>  me, and make claims to know what "all" the List is doing or not doing.
>
>No, if I thought you were that egocentric I wouldn't expect you to speak for
>the group. If I thought you were that egocentric I think you'd say (quietly
>to yourself, of course), Fuck the group! It's me, me, me!

Well, er, I feel somewhat uncomfortable saying this seeing you said 
"sorry" and all, but my comment above was inspired by your own 
comment about "We are all not...."

>Sorry I called you self-centered, Quail.

OK, thanks for the apology.

>I can't understand why you fellas even like him.  You know he's insulting
>you, don't you? Personally, politically, socially, globally, religiously.

Well, first of all, I love Pynchon not as much for his politics, but 
for his sheer genius at writing, and his ability to portray human 
relationships. For his amazing writing alone I would read him, even 
if he had a right-wing political agenda. And secondly, I happen to 
agree with perhaps 90% of his politics, and I for one do not see him 
as "insulting," even when he is opposition to something I may 
personally believe. Thirdly, I am not entirely sure you are 100% 
correct in your own beliefs about Pynchon's opinions, so there is 
bound to be some disagreement there. And lastly, I ask you again -- 
what other Pynchon have you read? Your image of Pynchon may be 
colored by having only read GR.

>Look at Osama bin Laden's (bottom) line--Kill the
>infidel!  We used to call them dirty infidels right back, but we've evolved
>over here in America; now we just call them 'evil terrorists.'  Kill the
>Evil Terrorists!

Hmmmm.... I wonder, does what I am about to say count as a political 
post about the War? I will try to stay focused and reply directly to 
your statement.

You are actually correct, despite your sarcasm. I believe that it 
*does* show considerable evolution to move from "infidel" to 
"terrorist." The former identifies the Other as one who does not 
believe in your religion, whether or not they also happen to believe 
in peaceful coexistence, or even ideological/political struggle. The 
real "sin" is that they do not believe in your system of morality, 
superstition, and so on. That they exist, by their very nature and 
belief, in this state of "sin" means that no matter what actions they 
perform, they may be demonized a-priori. It also calls upon a 
religious mandate to either convert or destroy them. To call someone 
a "Terrorist" means that they employ violent means that deliberately 
target innocents in order to achieve a specific goal or set of goals. 
Although the use of such means may be against your own ideology (at 
least the ideology you would like to espouse), you are targeting 
their actions, not necessarily the beliefs upon which they are 
predicated on. These actions have implications and ramifications that 
are much broader than religion; you do not need to be a Christian to 
label bin Laden a terrorist; you can even be Islamic.

To take your own example and shift the verb:

"Jail the evil terrorist" vs. "Jail the evil infidel." I would assume 
you could agree with the first statement, but not the second. Surely 
now you can see the difference? There has been an evolution of 
thought in the West regarding religion and politics. I think you are 
more really in opposition to the idea of killing in general.

>It really astounds me that Doug could be so offensive to you fellows when
>Pynchon himself is so merciless. You think you'd be used to it by now. That
>'tone' you despise so--where do you think we learned it?  I know where I
>learned mine.  Heh, heh, heh...

Well, then I would say that you and Doug have both taken a skewed 
impression. Or, to use the religious terminology you so favor, you 
have corrupted the Word. While some of Pynchon's characters may have 
an abrasive tone; overwhelmingly I believe he is a writer of 
compassion, grace, and empathy -- even to the enemies he so roundly 
deplores or satirizes. I think that you and Doug both tend to flatten 
the complexity of Pynchon in order to derive justification from his 
text.

--Quail