re re re re Re: "The Evacuation still proceeds..." GR Part 1 Section 1

[Tim Strzechowski]

I agree, Peter.  There's nothing that says the Holocaust *has* to be central 
to a reading or understanding of GR.  Conversely, there's nothing that says 
the Holocaust *can't* be central to one's reading of the novel, if in fact 
the novel carries with it resonances of that aspect of the historical 
period.  Hopefully, I have made my position on the matter clear: if a reader 
can justify a "Holocaust reading" that is meaningful to him/herself (and a 
Holocaust reading is certainly supportable), that's a valid reading; if a 
reader can gain a meaningful reading of the book without focusing on the 
Holocaust (and a reader need not say that a text must have X number of 
references to the Holocaust to justify that reading), that too is a valid 
reading.  But the text, being complex and brilliantly crafted, supports 
*both* readings and neither is exclusive to understanding or appreciating 
the work.




> I, a lurker, present myself for a flaming.  I read GR once, about 15 years
> ago and was overwhelmed, amazed, captivated, confused, dazzled, 
> fascinated.
> Really looking forward to going through it again with the group and
> benefiting from insights provided by an obviously eclectic bunch of 
> people.
> However, not having majored in English, not having any particular interest
> in Literary Criticism (capital L, capital C), I'm having a hard time
> understanding all the round'n'round about the holocaust and GR.  I, for
> one, frankly don't care whether or not the "Holocaust was 'central' to 
> GR",
> and further am not sure why I should.  Is there some perverse PC tenet
> which states that every novel set in Europe in the first half of the 1940s
> has to address the holocaust?  Are there other unwritten laws that state
> that novels set in other locales and times must concern themselves with
> particular historical events?
>