VLVL Rex and the BLGVN

[jbor]

otto
> 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.

I don't agree that Puritanism is the main Christian "streak", whatever that
might mean, in the USA. And Rex does not mention Puritanism or America.

> You've
> changed "illusions" to "interest" which gives it quite another meaning.

I've changed nothing. Rex has never had any illusions about the fate of PR3,
however, he also sees "no point in issuing warnings" any more (232.1-5). In
fact we are told that Rex didn't care much about PR3 before either: he told
Weed to bail out, let it fall on its face. He knows he's off to Paris soon
anyway, so what does he care (232.13-4).

> 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.

There are references to contemporary America elsewhere in the intro, of
course, and no-one needs to avoid these to note that there are specific
references to Winston Churchill and wartime England in the passage in
question. I'm just pointing out the warped logic and/or double standard in
your belligerent assertion that when Rex talks about "the True Faith" and
"crusades" it can't possibly refer to a more general history of Western
imperialism, but when Pynchon mentions "enemy bombs", "air raids" and
"Churchill's war cabinet" it is unquestionably a reference to September 11.

And:

>> 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.

Rex's "Southeast Asian studies", the proximity and interconnections between
Vietnamese and Cambodian history in the period, and Rex's documented "hopes"
(207-8), legitimately bring the Khmer Rouge into the picture as part of "the
historical depth the novel offers" (Thoreen). In my book, anyway. Whichever,
it's certainly clear that Pynchon is no apologist for Ho Chi Minh. And nor
for Pol Pot either, I'd wager.

best