Foreowrd "The Habit of Point-for-Point Analogy"

[Malignd]

<<"Now, those of fascistic disposition--or merely
those among us who remain all too ready to justify any
government action, whether right or wrong--will
immediately point out that this is prewar thinking,
and that the moment enemy bombs begin to fall on one's
homeland, altering the landscape and producing
casualties among friends and neighbors, all this sort
of thing, really, becomes irrelevant, if not indeed
subversive.  With the homland in danger, strong
leadership and effective measures become of the
essence, and if you want to call that fascism, very
well, call it whatever you please, no one is likely to
be listening, unless it's for the air arids to be over
and the all clear to sound.  But the unseemliness of
an argument--let alone a prophecy--in the heat of some
later emergency does not necessarily make it wrong. 
One could certainly argue that Churchill's war cabinet
had behaved no differently than a fascist regime,
censoring news, controlling wages and prices,
restricting travel, subordinating civil liberties to
self-defined wartime necessity.">>

I have read the above a number of times and I find it
interesting and vexing; vexing primarily because of
lack of a sure context within the larger piece, but
also because of (what seems to be, anyway, given the
lack of context) a sloppiness of attribution or flow
on Pynchon's part.

The first sentence enunciates what Pynchon feels would
be an argument from "those of fascistic disposition"
and perhaps less rabid government justifiers that
enemy bombs and casualties make "all this sort of
thing irrelevant, if not indeed subversive." 

I'm assuming this "sort of thing" is complaint against
those who hold with "any government action, whether
right or wrong."

Translated: {Those of a fascistic disposition would
say that]people who complain about a too-controlling
government shut up right quick when their protection
is at stake.  So I read it, in any case.  

Here it becomes tricky.  The second sentence,
beginning "with the homeland in danger ..."  Is
Pynchon continuing to enunciate the fascistic
disposition?  If so, is he in agreement with it?  Or
is he speaking there in his own voice?  And, in either
case, is he not in (at least limited) agreement with
the position, that "strong leadership and effective
measures become of the essence"?  

The unseemly argument would seem to be, in P's opinion
(or P in agreement with the rhetorical fascist),
Orwell's calling the British government fascistic,
unseemly during time of war.  Further, Pynchon is
saying that such complaint that a government is acting
fascistically when there's a war on is "unseemly,"
even if true.  Unseemly (even if true!) to point out
that Churchill's war cabinet behaved no differently
than a fascist regime ..."

Again, I'm hobbled by the lack of continuity and
context as well as questionable syntax.  But, is
Pynchon not saying here that, with a war on, one does
best to shut up and support the troops?

Hardly a radical position, but one I should think not
in accord with attitudes readily assumed and
attributed to Pynchon by many on this board.
 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com