Pynchon and fascism

[Vincent A. Maeder]

Ok, that's fair.  I'd rather stay off the analysis field ever since my
hip deconstruction... or at least that appeared to be the context of
your reply when I first read it.  Are you asking "What kind of Fiction
is it?" in the context of analysis or logic?  My attempt may have been
logistic, but the intent was to discuss the construction of prose by
Pynchon (and the greater universe of authors) whether fiction or essay
and to say (in contravention to a prior suggestion) that even though the
piece is nonfiction Pynchon's devices employed in his fiction are
available to him in the Foreward.  But perhaps that is not how it came
across, which is quite possible considering the massive amount of gunk
percolating out of my sinuses right now...

V.

-----Original Message-----
From: Terrance
> "Vincent A. Maeder" wrote:
> 
> So your question, "What kind of fiction is the Foreward?" is perhaps
> better structured as, "What POV is created by the Foreward?"  The
> choice of wording depends upon the POV under which the analyst
> him/herself is working.  Your mileage will vary based on the type of
> assumptions your analysis engine operates under.

A different question. And it's not one I didn't ask. 

So why restructure the question about what kind of fiction the Foreword
is as a question of how perspective (POV) and method (your analysis
engine operates) and premises (assumptions) and conclusions create or
construct the Foreword. 

Again, this a logistical approach and not an Analytical one. 

It's fascinating that logic is the method that P-listers think superior
to analytical inquiry. I think it's indicative of just how reckless and
destructive recent theoretical claims have been in the study of
literature.  I think that Paul N. started off attempting an analysis.
But inquiry was just just too much for the P-list. While David Morris
has a very good point when he complains that Paul N. is using a jargon,
what really turned the entire discussion from analysis to a logical
explication of grammar and the like wasn't  Paul N's jargon or even his
reluctance for whatever reason to define his terms or clue us all in on
the theoretical ideas he was mixing and matching (as Paul M. suggested)
or even his high mindedness in dealing with issues like how
practitioners of POST modern ISM have NON-defined themselves by hiding
the moderns behind their ears like an ace of spades in a poker match
(Paul N. seemed to hint, when he raised the pedagogical issue ( Leavis &
Co.) that something has collapsed from the force needed to keep the
moderns posted against the wall)  but the obsessive claims to what P
wrote about fascism.  

Duping Dupin? 

Does P violate the rules of prose or poetry? Mix them up?  Once the
rules or cannons of validity can be formulated, then validity can be
determined by conformity to these rules or cannons. We should do well to
remember that the worrd cannon comes from the Greek "kanon" and it means
straight, the rod, the rule, the standard. P's writing is loopy. His
Foreword is not a standard Foreword. What kind of Foreword has P
written? A fiction? 
What kind of Fiction is it?