TOO reBEel or naught to reBEel ?

[Bekah]

Yes, indeed.  But at the Golden Gate moratoriums and peace demos  
there were all sorts of different people, some in groups with signs -  
"little old ladies against the war," for instance,  or "hard hats  
against the war."  Whatever.   (Union # 25 against the war.)  And a  
huge part of the anti-war movement of the late '60s early '70s was  
the draft for the war effort - that activated a lot of people across  
a broad spectrum.   It hit home personally.  The thing that turned my  
parents (staunch Republicans) against the war was that the kids were  
coming back from 'nam addicted to drugs - who were we helping and  
what were they doing to us? (I'm not arguing the point - I'm showing  
the range of reasons for being a part of the anti-war people.)

I used to have the feeling that I'd lived a former life in 1789 as  
the wife of a fisherman who was more interested in what was happening  
in the Bastille than on the Seine.  I supported the Revolution but  
the kids needed to be fed!  (heh)

Bekah


On Apr 10, 2009, at 8:12 AM, kelber at mindspring.com wrote:

> I don't think I or anyone else here has expressed some naively  
> optimistic view that if they (lower case) had been more politically  
> aware in the '60s, there would have been some more successful  
> rebellion against THEM, or attributed that view to Pynchon.  The  
> conversation originally arose because someone expressed frustration  
> about the window-breakers and police-fighters in London, and others  
> of us thought such people had their place in "the rebellion"  
> against the powers that be.
>
> If the antiwar movement succeeded in the '60s, it was because of  
> the broad spectrum of people involved.  The mass demos in  
> Washington were clogged with people whose ideology allowed for  
> little more than looking ahead to the next toke or the next piece  
> of ass.  But their physical presence, along with radical activists  
> of various persuasions, helped a fringe movement become a mass  
> movement in the eyes of first the media, then the public, then the  
> politicians.
>
> In terms of Che (not Guevara, but the lingerie-lifting teen- 
> hooker), I think Pynchon looks upon her without judgment and with  
> some fondness and more than a little prurience (he clearly has a  
> thing for teenaged girls).  But I don't think he or any of us here  
> would consider her form of rebellion an effective one.  Ultimately,  
> there's never going to be an effective rebellion -- we're not in  
> line for any Nirvana on earth --but informed rebellion is one of  
> the great experiences available for the lucky few on this planet.   
> It may be that Che finds shoplifting and taking creeps for their  
> money to be a thrilling form of rebellion.  Personally, it's hard  
> for me to believe that Che's life is as thrilling as that of a  
> genuine rebel:  a Wobbly or a Paris Communard.  And the anti-war  
> demonstrations must have been more exhilarating for the SDS  
> activists than the apolitical potheads.  Rebellion for the hell of  
> it is fun, but political awareness can only increase the high (just  
> a gut feelin!
>  g here).
>
> Laura
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ray Easton <kraimie at kraimie.net>
>
>> Certainly Pynchon does not endorse conformity.  And equally  
>> certainly,
>> he favors rebellion.  I entirely agree with what Paul has said about
>> this.  And in particular I think the reference to Camus is quite apt
>> (can't recall now who first introduced it).  And the reference you  
>> made
>> to Buddhism also seems on the mark.
>>
>> My question was meant to suggest that in several recent posts, the
>> authors are mistakenly attributing to Pynchon their personal  
>> political
>> "optimism" (for lack of a better word).   Several posters take the  
>> view
>> -- "well, if they had done this, instead of that... if they had  
>> marched, 
>> instead of smoking dope... if they had studied lefty thought,  
>> instead of
>> shoplifting..."   The post to which I am now responding seems at  
>> times
>> to adopt such a view.
>>
>> I've no quarrel with such views -- I don't share them, but I have no
>> desire to argue against them.  But I do not see such any such view
>> present in Pynchon's writing.  On the contrary, such a view seems  
>> to me
>> distinctly un-Pychonian.
>>
>> Ray
>>
>