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

[Tim Strzechowski]

Points well taken, Keith.  But let me ask:

When a literary work is read, is it not possible to draw one's "reading" 
from a collective series of, say, images that the author employs?  For 
example (and to use an old text with which all of us are probably familiar, 
merely to illustrate), _Hamlet_ makes countless mention of decay, rotting, 
etc., but collectively these references can be read to reflect the "state of 
Denmark," the protagonist's rotting mindset ("antic disposition"), etc.  The 
words on the page can help the reader gain meaning from the text by 
collectively enhancing the meaning of the text for the reader, in this 
particular example via imagery of "decay."

What Fiero does an excellent job of here is give us some examples of that:

http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l&month=0510&msg=98685&sort=date

And while the examples he gives are, one must admit, taken somewhat out of 
context (and what I mean is, he has provided us with a list of individual 
*moments* in which the *single word* "holocaust" is used, which is different 
from actual episodes that invite attention to such things as, say, slave 
labor -- the wacky chase scene in the Mittlewerke, for example [pp. 
295-314]), these references to "holocaust" add to the textual resonances 
that a reader may choose to focus upon (after all, an author whose work is 
set during the Blitz in WWII and concerns itself with the manufacture of 
rockets which, historically, were associated with slave labor, a-and uses a 
word like "holocaust" in various instances -- a word rife with 
connotations -- can't be doing so *accidentally*) and, thus, enhance one's 
"reading."

All I'm saying, Keith, is that I can accept it if a reader says that GR 
concerns itself with the Holocaust because there is textual evidence to 
support it in the work.  Now, do I think the Holocaust is Pynchon's main 
thrust in this narrative?  Absolutely not.  When I say GR "concerns itself" 
with the Holocaust, do I mean GR is "about" the Holocaust?  No. There's much 
more going on here, and the Holocaust is only a miniscule component of the 
novel (and I'll let others argue the extent to which it pervades the novel). 
But NO one can (or should) contend that the Holocaust is "nowhere described 
or referred to in the novel."

Tim



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Keith McMullen" <keithsz at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Pynchon Index Cacorum" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: re re re re Re: "The Evacuation still proceeds..." GR Part 1 
Section 1


> That's not really the question being debated is it? There is disagreement 
> regarding the words on the page. Until any 'reading' of those words can be 
> deemed valid or invalid, a clear understanding of what words are there and 
> what words aren't must be acknowledged. I have no problem with anyone's 
> 'reading' except when they say certain words and sentences are in the text 
> when they are not. Fr. Fiero posted a search which listed the actual 
> words. What if we were to focus our discussion on those words and 
> sentences? I'm open to any number of 'readings' of what those words mean 
> in the context of the novel. But don't tell me the text has references 
> that Fiero's search demonstrates are not there. It's one thing to have 
> differing readings. It's another to leave muddy Nabokian footprints all 
> over what is written. I don't know shit about literary criticism, but I 
> figure one point of common ground is that any 'reading' must at least 
> start with actually reading.
>
> Let the Evacuation continue.....
>
> On Oct 27, 2005, at 6:32 PM, Tim Strzechowski wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>