Harvard Law Review cites Pynchon

[Bekah]

At 4:05 AM +0200 4/30/05, Otto wrote:
>To fresh up an old quarrel:
>
>>
>>   it inaccurately describes Zoyd as "a former '60s activist"
>>
>
>Why inaccurately? It seems to me that the term "'60s activism" includes more
>then just the SDS, the Black Panthers or the the Civil Rights Movement. Back
>in those days music and drugs were part of the political scale.



In the late 60s, early 70s, the saying was  "Everything Is Political" 
and the radicals, the leftists, the movement people saw it that way. 
It was due to the polarization over the war.

The way you wore your hair and the kind of clothes you wore was 
political.  If you did any kind of drugs,  or if you didn't; if you 
ate meat or if you didn't; it was all a political statement.  The art 
on your walls, or that you made, was a political statement,  the 
music was political,  the sex was political.  The TV shows you 
watched were a political statement.   In the minds of the radicals, 
people were living statements of their politics.  There was nothing 
outside the political.

So by the definition of the radical minds,  Zoyd was a political 
being in the same way that everyone was a political being.  Even 
Brock was a political being (well of course he was).

But were Zoyd  and Brock activists?  This takes the term "political" 
a step further, transforming it into a conscious effort to be 
involved in actions directed at opposing the war.    Brock is 
obviously not an activist in that sense.   He was probably a 
reactionary while Zoyd  was probably in the "stoned and I missed it" 
category  (as the old song went).

Bekah
ex wanna-be theoretician (sigh)