1984 Foreword "redefining a world in which the Holocaust did not happen"

[jbor]

>>> Much has been made recently of Orwell's own
>>> attitude toward Jews, some commentators going so far
>>> as to call it anti-Semitic. If one looks in his
>>> writing of the time for overt references to the topic,
>>> one finds relatively little - Jewish matters did not
>>> seem to command much of his attention - what published
>>> evidence there is indicates either a sort of numbness
>>> before the enormity of what had happened in the camps
>>> or a failure at some level to appreciate its full
>>> significance. There is some felt reticence, as if,
>>> with so many other deep issues to worry about, Orwell
>>> would have preferred that the world not be presented
>>> the added inconvenience of having to think much about
>>> the Holocaust. The novel may even have been his way
>>> of redefining a world in which the Holocaust did not
>>> happen. (xvi-xvii)
>> 
>> This seems to confirm Pynchon's own representation in _GR_ of those on both
>> sides of the war divide not wanting to think about the Holocaust, even those
>> who did know what happened in the death camps.

on 27/4/03 11:43 AM, Mutualcode at aol.com wrote:

> Right. And if one reads the reference provided by Dave:
> 
> George Orwell, "Antisemitism in Britain" (1945)
> 
> http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/o/o79e/part24.html
> 
> that becomes even more apparent. Clearly Orwell was
> very aware of how complex an issue anti-semitism could
> be, and I think the essay demonstrates his dislike and
> concern about it, but it also suggests that he missed
> the connection with how such "stupidity" could mushroom
> into the unbelievable magnitude of The Holocaust.
> 
> In what Dave quoted I do not see any evidence that Pynchon
> is suggesting Orwell fell into the second category of
> character you describe in GR:
> 
> "...those who did know what happened in the death camps."

_1984_ was published in 1948. In the excerpt from the Foreword cited above
Pynchon is saying that the "evidence" from Orwell's writings from this time
(1945 and after I'm assuming) "indicates either a sort of numbness before
the enormity of what had happened in the camps or a failure at some level to
appreciate its full significance", and an ensuing "felt reticence" (less
"naivety" than a feeling of horror, and sensitivity and respect for the
victims, is Pynchon's point here I think) to address the Holocaust. Surely
this implies that Orwell knew about what had happened, or that Pynchon is
assuming he did, doesn't it? As Otto said, after the liberation of the camps
at war's end, the enormity of the Holocaust was revealed pretty quickly.

best

> But I think that Pynchon might be suggesting some less
> malevolent motivation at work, i.e., to portray the disease of
> nationalism as the greater threat to humanity in general.
> There is no proving it either way with what has been made
> available. If Pynchon is absolving Orwell of anti-semitism, he
> does so by underlining how naive people were, and how much
> thinking has changed with respect to mass hatred based on
> cultural and ethnic divisions, and, the failure of well-intentioned
> social engineering- a certain faith in which seeps through
> Orwell's essay.