GR 'Streets'

[jbor]

on 21/4/03 12:27 PM, s~Z wrote:

> Terrance:
> An example?
> 
> jbor:
> "Sure. Christian chaplains, "working for the army", preaching about
> salvation
> and redemption and sending soldiers out to their deaths. It's grotesque."

Sure 'tis. Not the chaplains' or the soldiers' faults, however. Pathos.

And what I've said is that in the text it's down to war and "organised
religion": not  a 'who'; nor a 'why'; nor even a 'how'; but a couple of
connected 'whats'. You've been attaching the other consequential assertions
yourselves. 

War and "organised religion": they, amongst other stuff, get a bad rap in
the novel.

... And, I must admit, I'm more interested on, sorry, *in*, nailing the
"what could bes" which Pynchon incorporates into his texts (and there are
some), both generally as a reader and as a lens or spectrum on world affairs
and current events also. In those contexts, then, I don't see that what
you've scoffed at as "the Gaia reading" (553.5-12), or active pacifism, are
so far wide of the mark either. The one thing I'd withdraw right now from a
couple of my original posts on this passage is the reference to Millison,
and my attack on the logic behind his posting up a copious quantity of
sometimes blatantly biased news reports. It's a minor quibble.

And hey, what's with all the Spanish Inquisition-style rhetorical crap you
guys use? Vox populi, please.

best