Pynchon as propaganda

[Mutualcode at aol.com]

In a message dated 4/6/2003 12:34:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
jbor at bigpond.com writes:


> Characterising religious faith as "an exercise in deception" is enormously
> disrespectful.
> 
> 

Using religious faith as a means of deception is even more so.
If one finds it necessary to give the "chaplains" some cover, then
one could suggest that they were deceiving themselves first and the
men second. Taken as a whole it could be a combination of mutual
deception that fit the needs of both. There is a sense of that other
relationship of mutual self-deception in this passage which has 
inspired so much roiling and roisting on this list, and the lines are 
pretty much drawn the same way. Lest we forget that we are dealing 
with fictional characters here, and all of us are wrapped in a tight
skin- not of imipolex- but of words, it might all just come down to a
matter of taste, with which there is no arguing.

The passage leaves open the question of whether or not war
itself was questioned in light of the scriptures. It may have
been. Some men may have refused to out and kill, or, the
chaplains might have used their time and words to keep the
fear and doubts of the men at bay, to keep them functioning 
as killing machines in the service of their superior officers. 
Pynchon leaves it open, but the narrator, apparently, expects
some disbelief from the reader, which is in contrast to the
willing suspension of disbelief that the chaplains are making
use of. The garrison-churches might be theaters similar to the
secular temple we all are seated in at the end of the book.

At any rate, I think Kierkegaard, what little I know of him,
might be a better guide (or usher) here than the others listed.
At least he believed he knew where the exit was.

respectfully
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20030406/baa81670/attachment.html>