VLVL "closed ideological minds" (232)

[Otto]

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: VLVL "closed ideological minds" (232)


> >> otto
> >>> Rex is not talking about Asian dictators but about America explicitly
in
> >>> that quote.
> >>
> >> I disagree. As I've said, I don't think that Rex is talking about
America,
> >> the Bushes or WASPs specifically in the passage on p. 232.
> >
> > He's explicitly talking about America in those 5 1/2 lines. You can deny
> > that again and again but it doesn't change the text of the novel.
> >
> >> It's a general
> >> historical and ideological analysis,
> >
> > ... of the Capitalist Puritan American Society, resp. its rulers.
>
> I understand your selective interpretation of "Christian Capitalist Faith"
> to be 100% synonymous with WASP America (it isn't, obviously --
Christianity
> and Capitalism are generic rather than specific terms, and Rex is a
> Bolshevik Leninist, not a Weberian). I simply don't agree that Rex is
> talking specifically or only about American politics and history here.

He's talking to Weed and Frenesi about the thing going on in the USA at that
time, about the PR3. He's not talking about the international proletarian
revolution he's going to seek in Paris.

> He's
> an internationalist and an ideologue; he isn't even particularly
interested
> in the fate of PR3 (232.3).

To have "no more illusions about something" is different to being interested
in that thing or not.

> There's nothing about "American dynasties"

"mentor to protege, generation to generation"

> and
> "European dynasties" and "blood-aristocracy" being replaced by
> "money-aristocracy" in the quote: that's your construction. He does talk
> about the "True Faith" and "crusades" and "retribution", however, which
> widens the scope of the historical panorama he's envisaging to include the
> rise of Christianity and European imperialism in early modern times.
>

The historical crusades hardly belong to the era of capitalism.

> It's not a major issue, however, but I do understand why you keep harping
on
> and on about it to cover for other absurdities.

No, you obviously don't.

> It's clear enough that Rex
> isn't talking about McCarthyism and anti-communist witchhunts,

No, it is not at all that clear. You are only claiming that he is not
referring to the American money aristocracy.

> and quoting
> that passage doesn't support the ridiculous contention that Pynchon has
> avoided publicity for 40 years because he's scared of McCarthyism and
> anti-communist witchhunts,

You are repeating yourself. And I never said that P. "avoided publicity for
40 years because he's scared" -- that's the myth your building. I've said
that in the early sixties the existence of the HUAC could have been one of
his reasons. Jules Siegel has mentioned something that points into the
direction that there has been a time when Pynchon seemed to be more afraid
of getting into trouble because of his writing as for being caught on
smoking or possessing dope.

> nor is there any indication whatsoever that Rex
> is a mouthpiece for Pynchon.

Which character is a mouthpiece for P.?

> Most absurd of all, of course, is the claim
> that the Khmer Rouge weren't communist.
>
> best

It would be an even more absurd claim to call the Khmer Rouge communists
given your own definition of that ideology. Marx will rotate in his grave.

Otto