VLVL Rex and the BLGVN

[Otto]

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 12:49 AM
Subject: Re: VLVL Rex and the BLGVN

> otto
> > Wimpe is talking about the Marxian idea of history, Rex about the
> > imagination the "Puritan Capitalist Faith" has of being "immune to all
> > the history the rest of have to suffer."
>
> Note how you need to change Pynchon's text to maintain your argument; it's
> the "Christian Capitalist Faith" Rex refers to (232). I agree that Rex's
> analysis is similar to Wimpe's in _GR_; I've said all along that it's a
> general Leninist-style rant against Christianity and Capitalism rather
> than a specific critique of Puritanism and American democracy.
>

My changing of words in this case was a little error, but as Puritanism is
the main Christian streak in the USA it's a minor error, neglectable. You've
changed "illusions" to "interest" which gives it quite another meaning.

> > 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.
>
> Actually, it's a flashback to an earlier conversation he had had with Weed
> (and not Frenesi). In the present time Rex knows there's no point in
> "issuing warnings" about "infiltrators" (i.e. Frenesi, and it's
> interesting that Rex knows that Frenesi is an infiltrator),

Is it said that he knows she is? Why should he then kill Weed alone (and not
her too) later? They're both snitches.

> or "sunshine revolutionaries" (i.e. the "citizens of PR3" who cheered
> when Rex gave away Bruno to the BAAD boys), nor does he have
> any illusions about the inevitable "fate of PR3". But, "[o]nce he said"
> (i.e. prior to this moment he warned Weed) what is recounted there
> in the text. His warning to Weed is to bail out because in this situation,
> as in many others throughout history and across the globe, those who
> hold the reins of power are going to prevail.
>
> > The historical crusades hardly belong to the era of capitalism.
>
> So, on planet otto, the word "crusade", which is in the text and does
> definitely relate to Christianity, which is also referred to in the
> passage,

What's then use of this ad hominem attack?

Christianity in America, far later then the era of crusades. That's what the
students, blacks, hippies and other nonconformists are up against and that's
what Rex' rant is about.

> cannot possibly refer back to the historical crusades (which were an early
> manifestation of Western imperialism and as such most certainly paved a
> way
> for the rise of capitalism later on); and yet the word "homeland", used by
> Pynchon in reference to England during the Blitz in WWII in the Orwell
> 'Intro', must definitely refer to the US Homeland Security Act of 2003?
> See what I mean about double standards.
>

But here you avoid the other clear references to contemporary USA in the
1984-essay. The examples for doublespeak in contemporary America the
foreword points to. So no double standard at all, just the proper context
which is what you miss in the Vineland-quote too.

> > But still no evidence from the text that Rex is dreaming of the
> > Khmer Rouge.
>
> 208.3-7
>
> Meanwhile you keep ignoring the passage which describes how the 500 BLGVN
> cadres sent to Vietnam disappeared because they were not
> politically-aligned with Ho Chi Minh (207), avoiding a specific piece of
> the text etc etc.
>
> best

"(...) Rex Snuvvle, a graduate student in the Southeast Asian Studies
Department, who while being indoctrinated in the governments' version of the
war in Vietnam (...)"

A version which you clearly have fallen victim too, which you've presented
it in the course of the discussion, for example by using the word "enemy"
for the Vietcong when referring to what Vato & Blood did in Vietnam. That's
been very revealing. For the sixties revolutionaries as for the author of
the
novel the Vietcong simply wasn't the enemy. The people of Vietnam was a
victim of US-foreign policy. That is not only what the novel tells too but
has it as a premise in it's historical background.

"(...) had, despite his own best efforts, been at last as unable to avoid
the truth as, once knowing it, to speak it, out of what he easily admitted
was fear of reprisal.

What is this truth? It is the truth about the "murder in Vietnam" which he
was unable to speak out as long as he's been at the SASD where the
official lies about the war were part of the schedule.

"(...) In his increasingly deeper studies he had become obsessed with the
fate of the Bolshevik Leninist Group of Vietnam (...)."

Note: "of Vietnam" - not of Cambodia. No reference to Pol Pot.

---------------------------------

> > avoiding a specific piece of the text etc etc.

-------------------------------------------

I don't have to avoid pieces of the text because they don't "cover"
my own politics. There's too much in V, GR, VL, M&D, the
Watts-essay, the Luddite-essay, the SL-intro and the
1984-forword I wholeheartedly agree to.

Otto
"Nothin' meaner than a old hippie that's gone sour"