Pynchon as propaganda

[Terrance]

Replying to Paul's post, MC wrote: 

In a message dated 4/3/2003 2:28:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
  paul.mackin@[omitted] writes:


  > The time for questions as to the futility of war or the justice of
war 
  >are in the > past. We are viewing (reminiscing) the scene from a
point 
  >at which war>  and all the atrocities that inevitably flow from war
have 
  >long since > become a given.
  


  Only if one has already decided one must fight and there are no other
  alternatives. War may be inevitable as long as there are people who
  believe that to be the case. However, and this is to the point of the
  passage, fighting is an individual choice. So, for any given
individual,
  making war is not inevitable. Quakers are one example of a group that
  support the individual decision not to participate in war and see such
  behavior as the antithesis of cowardice and disloyalty. Quakers do not
  "work for the army," as the clergymen in the passage, but for God.

What is the point of the passage? It is taken from that famous
fragmented chapter toward the end of GR. It, and other passages from
that strange and fragmented chapter are often cited as proof of
Pynchon's opposition to war and things like,  racism, colonialism,
capitalism, marginalism, gnosticism, and Izmmms of a thousands shades
and shapes. But what is the point of this passage? I have to agree with
half of what Paul said, 

"We are viewing (reminiscing) the scene from a point at which war  and
all the atrocities that inevitably flow from war have long since become
a given." 

There is no doubt about this. And obviously after viewing the scene from
the limited ("reminiscent") view we are invited to consider the broader
implications of the scene. 
I'm quite convinced that Pynchon does have War (uppercase War, war
generally, the war that never ends) in mind too. Can we find evidence in
the novel that supports the claim that this passage or others in the
novel are indicative of Pynchon's opposition to war generally and
specifically the Vietnam conflict? 

Also, the Quaker example is problematic because Quakers have worked for
the army in the same manner as the clergy in the passage. 

That being said, individuals and groups (including some Quakers) have
supported the individual decision not to participate in war. The courage
and loyalty,  patriotism, even nationalism, of conscientious objectors,
war protesters, and so on, can vary and take many forms. Such efforts
are not futile. People of fame and influence,  like the Pope or Muhammad
Ali,  can have a huge impact. If GR can be read as an anti-war novel
generally and if we can find evidence that the novel is specifically an
anti-Vietnam novel, can we also discover what the novel says about the
anti-war movements, the conscientious objectors and the like? 

Peace, 

T