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

[jbor]

>From the Foreword:

> 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)

on 28/4/03 8:03 AM, Mutualcode wrote:

> Pynchon's speculation reinforces my points about Orwell's
> naivete concerning state sponsored anit-semitism, his
> unwillingness or inability to consider it as a more general
> threat in the future, and, the differences between Orwell's
> and Pynchon's choice to not give The Holocaust overt
> "air time" in "1984" and GR respectively.

You originally stated that you didn't think Orwell "fell into the category"
of those who knew what had happened in the death camps, which is the
opposite of what Pynchon actually says in the Foreword. Do we agree on that?

Pynchon talks about why he thinks Orwell didn't give the Holocaust air-time
in his writings of the time (perhaps "a sort of numbness before the enormity
of what had happened in the camps", perhaps "a failure at some level to
appreciate its full significance", and that it is as if "Orwell would have
preferred that the world not be presented the added inconvenience of having
to think much about the Holocaust"). Then he suggests that the "novel may
even have been his way of redefining a world in which the Holocaust did not
happen." Pynchon gives a lot of "maybes", one of which is naivety, but there
are several others too, including those that I mentioned (horror, respect
for the victims) as well as the fact that he had other fish to fry in the
novel, as I think Paul has been pointing out.

> About your stated suggestion that the foreword:
> 
> "...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."
> 
> It's an interesting speculation linking Pynchon's description of what may
> have been motivating Orwell in and around his creation of "1984"

That's not quite what I'm saying. Pynchon is addressing Orwell's "attitude
towards Jews", complaints of "anti-Semitism" made against him and his work
by "some commentators", and the absence of "Jewish matters" and references
to the Holocaust in his writings of the time, and in the novel itself.
Pynchon talks about the depiction of Goldstein - Trotsky - and notes that
the "anti-Goldsteinism" in the novel is "never generalized into anything
racial". I think Pynchon is trying to explain why the Holocaust doesn't
figure - considering the time Orwell was writing and the plot and theme of
the novel it is a significant omission.

> with
> what may have been motivating "those on both sides of the war divide"
> in GR- characters, I'm assuming you mean- "not wanting to think
> about the Holocaust," but could you be more specific- which characters
> in GR- so we can decide for ourselves.

Yes, "characters", but a representation of characters and attitudes which is
grounded in historical evidence. When I corresponded with Ken McVay from
Nizkor a couple of years back he confirmed that Western leaders and the
general public didn't want to think about the Holocaust even when they did
know about what was happening in the camps, both during and after the war.
Ken wrote:

"Even when Allied leaders _knew_ what was going on, they shied away from
public statements/actions because they were afraid of being accused of
fighting only for the Jews."

"I have had a few discussions with Rudolf Vrba, who lives nearby...
Vrba was one of the first to carry the message of Auschwitz to the
West. His reports were not believed, to put it mildly. The world did
not WANT to know."

In the novel Pynchon presents the Dutch Resistance as knowing (Otto provided
the quote). So I think it's clear that Katje knows, and I've raised the idea
before that in playing the "Oven-game" both Katje and Blicero are trying to
defer or erase from their minds what they know or suspect is happening in
the camps. If we accept that Pirate can enter into the thoughts and dreams
of others then it's probable that he's aware too (which is where the reading
of the opening sequence as Pirate's dream channelling a Jewish victim on one
of the death trains gains some credibility), and which goes towards why he
is so psychologically conflicted about his work and role, and perhaps also
to why he's lumped together with Katje in that Counterforce hell later on.
This is all territory which has been covered here before.

best