BE Spoiler (if that's possible now)

[John Bailey]

Yeah, the whole section is a tirade against the popular (media's)
conversion of the atrocity into a tag-friendly thing. A cliche that
can be summed up in a memorable phrase. Except he sticks to "11
September" from here on. And "the atrocity". Better how?

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 8:34 PM, jochen stremmel <jstremmel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>Any idea why he goes 11 September vs 9-11?<
>
> 1) Because he has 24/7 in the sentence before.
>
> 2) Because he regards 9-11 as a cliché, similar to "Ground Zero"?
>
>
> 2013/11/16 David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>:
>> And Most Importantly, we are not told what to think. We are told what
>> current thoughts are happening, without taking sides.
>>
>>
>> On Friday, November 15, 2013, David Morris wrote:
>>>>
>>>> BUT perhaps it's entirely appropriate (and deliberate) that this abrupt
>>>> and STRIKING shift in voice occurs when it does. The novel's
>>>> form reflecting the atrocity itself, subjecting the reader to a kind of
>>>> authorial violence (we are suddenly told what to think of all this)
>>>
>>>
>>> Wow! & What?  Violence via tone shift?
>>>
>>> I agree that those three paragraphs read like an essay. P surely knows
>>> what he did here in this most central point of his 11-9 novel.  It is
>>> admission of ignorance as much as an asking of forgiveness for paranoia.
>>> But not a complete retreat.  The Paper of Record is a stand-in for blind
>>> consumerism info, his common refrain.
>>>
>>> Any idea why he goes 11 September vs 9-11?
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l