Manson Cult; was Golden Fang

[kelber at mindspring.com]

I hear there was a lot of ferocious debate about the exclusion/inclusion of the Holocaust in GR.  That occurred before I started lurking on the List, but I know it got pretty intense.  Hollander's Kennedy assassination subtext for COL49 is another biggie.  I don't think either conversation is trivial, regardless of which side of these arguments I sympathize with.  Here's something I noticed about M&D:  Pynchon never mentions Gettysburg, even though it falls geographically close to the line.  Of course the battle occurred much later than the events in M&D, but obviously, to later generations, the Mason-Dixon line would come to be most associated with the Civil War and everything that followed.  The mere mention of Gettysburg in M&D would have activated the Civil War association.  It must have been a deliberate choice on Pynchon's part not to bring it up.  But our present-day knowledge of the later significance of the Line haunts our reading of the book.  Gettysburg's omission is meaningful.  I agree, though, that saying that what's omitted is important can easily lead to lots of lame-o points, Keith.  Guilty with an explanation.

Laura

-----Original Message-----
>From: Keith <keithsz at mac.com>

>
>On Sep 27, 2009, at 11:36 AM, kelber at mindspring.com wrote:
>
>What Pynchon omits is often as important as what he includes.
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>
>While I kind of agree with that, it does nicely cover all the bases.
>
>Can't go wrong if the hermeneutic can use everything you don't say as  
>a point you're trying to make.