re Re: NP: Twain, Part One re Re: NP: Twain, Part One

[Terrance]

Bandwraith at aol.com wrote:
> 
> From: Doug Millison <millison at online-journalist.com>
> 
>  [Following this sort of reasoning, should Pynchon be considered has having
>  exploited the Herero in GR?]
> 
> Hello Doug,
> 
>  I would have preferred if you had asked, "Do YOU think
> Pynchon exploited the Herero...?" but it's a very good
> question, none-the-less.
> 
> I would also not include any statements, rationales, letters
> made by Pynchon regarding his possible intentions, in deciding
> whether his portrayal of the Herero in GR is exploitative.
> 
> In a way, all fiction seems exploitative on some level, and
> I think Pynchon begins to deal with that issue more and more
> with each novel. That seems most evident when the particular
> plot of each is dealing with "exploitation" itself, usually in a
> racially charged episode. So there is the larger meta-question,
> never far from the surface, and your more specific question
> w/r/t GR, which I think is less exploitative than V., and more
> than M&D.  Lot49 and Vineland seem less concerned with
> race, and more with self-exploitation.
> 
> The sudwest passages in GR seem to be extensions of V.,
> but the Schwarzkommando do not feel exploitative.

Not sure what you mean by exploitative here, but you seem to be implying
that P makes use of the history of the Herero selfishly or unethically.
Is that what you are saying? Or is it that P exploits the Herero as they
were exploited as "labor"? Or what? 


> There seems to be a correlation between the attempt
> to realistically portray the awful historic exploitation of
> the Herero (or others) in "great" novels- including the
> social context implied by "great novels"- and, the
> exploitation of by the author of the novel.


I suspect that you have not made yourself clear here. Could you please
re-state this? 
Also, I can understand why you may not want to include any P statements,
letters, so on, on this topic, but I can't understand why we can't get
examples from the texts. Why all these generalizations w/o a single
passage from any of the novels? 

An example I would be willing to discuss is from Mondaugan's Story in
the novel V., Part III, close to the end of Part III, 

the pages I have are 289-291, but your copy is probably different, 

anyway, it is a very long sentence that ends the section. 

It begins 

"If it were a parable (which he doubted) it probably went to illustrate
the progress...fog." 


BTW, I agree that George and Gersh are putting on quite a show for our
boys. That being said I can't believe that Gersh's is serious about
George wanting him to invest in Swamp land. 

Also, no doubt that George's use of the verb "Be" is BT.