Pynchon as propaganda

[jbor]

>> As I've already shown, both the tone and the semantic content of the
>> passage
>> do rely on the opposition of Christian faith in life after and death and a
>> view of death as final and irrevocable.

> This is simply not in the passage. Nowhere does the passage indicate that
> death is final and irrevocable.

The chaplains preach salvation and redemption. But the soldiers just die.
There it is. 

> It states an obvious fact, that the soldiers
> are dying and facing death. This is not an advocation of atheism.

I'm not claiming it is. I'm merely observing that the tone (which most
certainly indicates that what's happening here is, for the narrator at
least, anything but an "obvious fact") and the basic semantic content of the
passage rely on the disconnect between what the chaplains preached (Death,
Redemption, Salvation &c) and what actually happened to the soldiers right
afterwards. (Death.)

>>> Both
>>> theists and atheists acknowledge that soldiers die.
>> 
>> The chaplains tell the soldiers a myth about redemption and salvation.
>> But the soldiers just die. That's the
>> purport of the passage.
> 
> No way. That the soldiers die, yes, but that they 'just' die is your
> addition to the text.

Sorry. Not only do they do *just* die, they are *just* dead, and they are
*just* going to die. That's all that's there. The finality of the soldiers'
deaths gets re-emphasised three times in the paragraph, from three distinct
temporal perspectives. In textual order: they are "dead now"; they went out
and "some died"; and, they were "going to die". End of story.

> It is
> fair to assume that the chaplains are endorsing a life after death scenario,
> but invalid to suggest the narrator endorses atheism. There is simply no
> statement to that effect in the text.

I'm not saying that the narrator (or anybody else) endorses atheism. I'm
saying that the irony and the narrator's incredulous tone derive from the
contrast between what the chaplains preach (life after death) and what
happens to the soldiers (death). You don't see it or don't want to see it;
no big deal. But to say it's "not supportable by the text" is nonsense.

best

>>>> text is silent on the motivations of the chaplains, just as it is silent
> on whether or not the soldiers are Christians. As I said before, I fully
> realise that even suggesting that atheism might be a driving force within
> Pynchon's texts is tantamount to treason here, and not open for civil
> discussion.<<<
> 
> I have no problem with the possibility of atheism being a driving force in
> Pynchon's texts. There is simply no evidence of such in the passage. The
> statement that soldiers have died and are going to die is neither theistic
> nor atheistic. It is neutral fact.
> 
>>>> possibility that a "God" or gods don't exist is consistently
> excluded, both in general discussion and in discussing Pynchon's texts
> specifically.<<<
> 
> This has nothing to do with the passage we are discussing. Your view
> regarding this section of GR is not supportable by the text. These
> generalizations about general discussions of the texts has no bearing on the
> specifics of this passage.
>