1984 Foreword "fascistic disposition"

[Paul Mackin]

On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 13:58, Paul Nightingale wrote: 
> The fact of the matter is, the paragraph in question is perfectly clear.

Well, there is certainly disagreement about it. There's not much Paul N.
and I agree on but that it is Wednesday. (sorry Rob, majority rules)

> P begins, in the first part of the paragraph, by summarising the way in
> which "those of fascistic disposition", or anyone who thinks the
> government is always right, will justify attacks on civil liberties.

It's exceedingly important to note that "those of fascistic disposition"
are talking about WARTIME, not any old time. War is in the foreground 
right from the start, and prewar in the background. (that is, if there
IS a prewar, see down a few inches)


The first part of P's first  sentence is dreadful. To me the word
"fascistic" sounds at least in part like sarcasm or extreme hyperbole,
because in point of literal fact there is nothing heinous about pointing
out that full civil liberties, etc., may be a luxury that wartime
exigencies cannot afford? However the reader can't be sure Pynchon
doesn't perhaps actually mean "fascistic" here to some degree literally.
We (or I should say I) hoped this was not so for the simple reason that
it doesn't make literal sense. This is why in my own revision of the
paragraph I completely redid the first half of the first
sentence,leaving out the questionable sarcasm.

(Let me dispose of the awful possibility (as Father Rapier might put it)
that P is picking up completely on 1984 (in which if I remember rightly
Oceana is ALWAYS being bombed) and is assuming in this paragraph that
wartime is the ONLY time and that what the pointer-outers are pointing
out is that there was and is NEVER NEVER NEVER a time for the luxury of
civil liberties and other expectations of normalcy. It would be a pretty
crazy take off point for a serious discussion, but I thought I'd better
cover the base in case someone besides me thought of it.) 
.
Now for Paul's specific points 1-6:

> 1. Prewar thinking includes dissent and the givens of an everyday
> democratic way of life. Prewar thinking is critical of attempts by the
> government to curtail civil liberties.

Yes. 

> 2. In times of war, however, one might well consider that a 'normal'
> lifestyle has now become something of a luxury. One will readily
> surrender liberties, and suffer inconvenience, when the bombs start to
> fall. Dissent might even be subversive in that the war effort (eg
> morale) suffers.

Yes. And not just morale is in danger. The slip of a lip can sink a ship
as the posters said.


> 3. In times of war strong leadership is considered a necessity.

Indisputable. 

> 4. Hence, wartime has brought with it an altered outlook. This argument
> is used to reject any criticism of the government. It is reasonable to
> infer that fear is a key factor (although P never actually uses the
> word).


Pynchon does use the word "danger" and, yes,  fear would be the normal expectation. The
"argument" spoken of in the paragraph is the argument of the "unseemliness" of protest
against wartime infringement of normal rights. "Unseemliness" sounds a bit weak if
by it is meant "harmfulness," which I think makes the most sense.

Is this another bit of tongue in cheek?


> In the second part of the paragraph P deals with the prewar thinking
> that has opposed undemocratic government. Be it an argument or a
> prophesy of what will or might happen.
> 


The problem was there wasn't really a discussion of prewar thinking in
this particular segment. Prewar thinking was more referred to than described.

That part must have been contained in preceding text. Keith's question.

>From the start a lot has had to be left to the imagination.


> 5. This argument is based on principles that are not opportunistic, as
> the measures introduced by Churchill's war cabinet, as cited, might be
> described.

.
Using the term "opportunistic" to describe Churchill's actions implies
he was using wartime necessity merely as an excuse  to introduce harsh
restrictions on freedom, when the overwhelming preponderant view was
that the restrictions on actions and freedoms were necessary to winning
the war.

> 6. Viewed objectively, leaving aside for one moment the circumstances,
> and any justifications arising from those circumstances, the government
> has behaved in the same way as a fascist government.

I hope we don't leave "the circumstances" aside for too long a moment
because it cannot be assumed that the circumstances of WW II, namely the
need to win under quite unfavorable odds, were not at least as important
as following a strict adherence to peace time freedom of speech and
action. In other words you're not viewing things at all objectively. 

> The logic of the writing comes from the juxtaposition of arguments one
> (1-4 above) and two (5-6). One is an argument based on emotion, the
> other rather more objective.
> 
> This might be a key paragraph in the Foreword precisely that
> juxtaposition of arguments, of ways of arguing, is informed by another,
> the juxtaposition of WW2 and more recent events in the US - no
> contemporary reader can possibly fail to 'get' the references. Or can
> they?
> 



I'll stick with my original reconstruction, which was as logical as I could make
it without taking Pynchon out completely.

P.