AmeriQa

[barbara100 at jps.net]

> I believe he is a writer of
> compassion, grace, and empathy -- even to the enemies he so roundly
> deplores or satirizes.

I pass on all of it, except this, Quail.  As far as I can tell, Pynchon
doesn't have enemies.  And I think he's extremely careful not to deplore or
satirize from the viewpoint of an enemy.  He's 'one with....' He deplores
and satirizes us all equally.

----- Original Message -----
From: The Great Quail <quail at libyrinth.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: AmeriQa


> 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
>
>