Pynchon and fascism

[Paul Nightingale]

jbor wrote:

> >>> Modality is
> >>> absent
> >>> from the reiteration, because it is a far less exaggerated,
> >> controversial,
> >>> inflammatory assertion than the one which has come before.
> >>>
> >> What you describe as "weak modality" above is P writing in the
present
> >> tense for the first time in the Foreword. I said before that this
is
> >> what allows him to generalise, and the reader to speculate, about
> >> people's changing attitudes at times of war etc. Hence my view
> >> previously that "altering the landscape" (whether or not it refers
to
> >> 9/11 - fear not, I have no wish to bring that up here) might also
> >> signify changing perceptions.
> >>
> >> Consequently, the absence of such "weak modality" signifies P's
return
> >> to the past tense, to O and the situation post-45. Your detailed
> >> elaboration (as "exaggerated, controversial, inflammatory") of the
> >> earlier juxtaposition of one signifier to another is a
value-judgement,
> >> of course.
> 
> Not at all. It's an analysis of the way modality (timeless present,
future
> tense, if/then constructions, modal auxiliaries) is operating in the
> paragraph, offered as a starting-point for discussion.
> 

Cut the crap, it's a value-judgement.

> >> The point isn't whether or not I agree with you. Rather, the
> >> question to ask is why P has chosen that particular textual
strategy
> 
> Indeed, which is what I have been doing. It's important to identify
the
> strategy accurately first.
> 
> >> when he is writing in the present tense in order to generalise, to
open
> >> out his frame of references from WW2, ie to address the reader
("one
> >> could certainly argue" as opposed to "one might have argued" or a
> >> similar formulation in the past tense) rather than report, in
however
> >> convoluted a fashion, where O's mind was at.
> 
> Isn't this, by your own definition, "interpretation"? I.e. 'Pynchon is
> saying this, he's not saying that ... ' etc.
>

I think it an analytical point to say that a space opens up for the
reader to consider their own likely responses to a given situation. It
doesn't happen anywhere else prior to this paragraph. However, it's
clear that by this stage we've moved on. A friendly if critical
discussion (as I erroneously saw it, one slapped wrist coming up!) has
now turned into you sneering every time you put scare-quotes round the
words "analysis" and/or "interpretation" whenever you apply them to
whatever points I'm making.

> >>
> >>> Your "analysis" leads one to conclude - or to ask the question at
> >> least -
> >>> that Orwell thought of or wrote of Churchill as a fascist.
> >>
> >> I think not, as what I've written above indicates. Indeed, my
attempt
> at
> >> an analysis began when I was avoiding the question that Paul Mackin
had
> >> put: I was explaining precisely why I didn't want to discuss such
> >> questions, or to discuss the Foreword in such a way that it took us
> away
> >> from what P wrote.
> 
> Yes, you've offered selective (and inaccurate) "analyses", both at a
> lexical
> and structural level,

You haven't managed to demonstrate my inaccuracy anywhere, with or
without scare-quotes. As for "selective": I guess that goes back to
fascism/fascist. You're still peddling the same inaccurate nonsense in
the vain hope that anyone bothering to read this (other than myself, of
course) will have forgotten what I was actually doing. You're tried this
on before, and it was no more impressive then.

> avoided questions about and discussion of the
> arguments you've made,

On the contrary, I imagine many people are sick and tired of having to
delete my lengthy contributions to a discussion you're just decided to
sabotage. I quite agree we've taken it as far as it can go and it's no
longer interesting or productive. So why not just come out and say,
let's finish here?

> and set up a false opposition between
> "interpretation" (what everyone else is doing = "bad") and your own
> commentaries (= "good"),

Another example of your tendency to repeat something over and over,
hoping to make it part of the factual record.

> all the while taking the discussion further and
> further away from what is actually written in the Foreword!
> 

You must be having a quiet chuckle here. Go on, admit it. You do have a
sense of humour, after all. Admit it. Go on - I promise I shan't tell
anyone. (I'd be surprised if anyone else is still watching so it'll
remain our secret.)

>From day one (whenever that was) I've consistently argued that we should
focus on the text. I think anyone going through the archive and checking
what I've posted, and then what you've posted, will have little
difficulty in recognising which of us has been discussing Pynchon's work
(some would say relentlessly).

For the record, I think several people have participated in an
interesting and worthwhile discussion over the last week or so. That
includes you, jbor. I'm sorry you couldn't keep it going.