Pynchon and fascism

[Paul Nightingale]

Rather lengthy, this, so I'll send it as two posts.

jbor wrote:

> >
> >> A slight quibble. Can Labour here acquiesce and participate, as P
very
> >> precisely puts it, in something with which it is synonymous (even
if
> the
> >> end result, to the casual viewer, remains the same)?
> 
> There is a connection between "Churchill's war cabinet", which did
> comprise
> Labour Party Ministers, and its behaviour, and the subsequent
reference to
> British Labour's "wartime acquiescence to, and participation in, a
> repressive, Tory-led government". Synonymy = saying the same thing in
a
> different words.
> 

I've noticed that in your last couple of posts you've taken to teaching
me elementary grammar. Being so grateful, I'll try to ignore the
superior tone you cannot help adopting. Yes, it seems we're fast
approaching another of those impasses. Anyway, here goes.

I'm well aware what synonymy means, but if I ever need the dictionary
definition I know whose door to beg at. The wartime cabinet
(representing the govt as a whole) was a coalition that featured leading
Labour politicians (eg Attlee). The Labour party of course remained
outside the govt, as it does also today. The govt is not the party, and
vice-versa. Hence P's description of both "acquiescence to" (the
disabling of the party in opposition) and "participation in" (those
individuals who were part of the govt. My point remains, I'm afraid.

> >> More to the point,
> >> perhaps, Labour's "acquiescence" is qualified by "wartime", which
> itself
> >> signifies the past tense, given that P is now writing about O's
postwar
> >> attitude, when "the party [might] confront its contradictions".
> 
> It carries on from the references in the previous paragraph: "prewar
> thinking ... homeland in danger ... war cabinet ... wartime
necessity".
> Pynchon recounts the changes in British politics and society in a
> straightforward chronological way throughout this series of
paragraphs.
>

But P is sensitive to the way O's thinking is affected by changing
circumstances. The section as a whole, dealing with O's intentions,
considers the relationship between the novel (insofar as it expresses
O's thinking, ie functions as a signifier of its author's intentions)
and the historical context. As I've said before, P is reading O's
reading of the situation.

> >> Furthermore, it is Labour's election that confirms, in the text, O
as a
> >> "perpetual dissident", as one who is always dissenting.
> 
> It's a perpetuation of his dissidence from before the war, and from
the
> paragraph on the previous page: "Orwell thought of himself as a member
of
> the 'dissident Left' ... " It's his relationship with and attitude
towards
> the "'official Left'" - the British Labour Party - which is
foregrounded
> in
> the sequence of paragraphs.
> 
Of course it continues his prewar dissidence. I don't think "one who is
always dissenting" needs clarification, but thanks all the same.

In the text, "perpetual dissident" is juxtaposed to P's comment that the
new Labour Govt had to choose between the exercise of power as
experienced during the war and "stick[ing] to the ideals of its
founders". This is the first time O has had to deal with Labour as the
party of govt. As P writes: his "critique ... was to undergo some
modification" when Labour won the election. It's not just a
"straightforward chronological development" we're talking about, but the
way O's thinking related to those changing circumstances.

> >> Similarly, the "repressive ... govt" corresponds, within the
narrative,
> >> not to "fascist regime", but to the earlier juxtaposition of war
> cabinet
> >> to fascist regime, which juxtaposition (including P's careful
> >> qualification, "behaved no differently than" + examples) is what
now
> >> informs our understanding of what's said to be repressive about the
> >> govt. Hence, to say that one is synonymous with the other doesn't
do
> >> full justice to the careful way P has constructed the paragraph.
> 
> I agree, as I noted in my previous post.

That would be when you 'agreed' by claiming I thought P accused
Churchill of being a fascist. Funny sort of agreement, methinks.

> However, the theme, recapitulated
> several times in the sequence of paragraphs, is Orwell's attitude
towards
> the British Labour Party of the time. The only lexical link with
> "Churchill"
> anywhere in the entire sequence is "Tory-led".
> 

So why simply equate, as you did, "repressive ... govt" with "fascist
regime"? By doing so you miss out the narrative point I am making.

To be continued ...