1984 Foreword--All Writing Is Fiction?

[Paul Nightingale]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On
> Behalf Of davemarc
> Sent: 06 June 2003 21:38
> To: Pynchlist
> Subject: 1984 Foreword--All Writing Is Fiction?
> 
> Perhaps at times the concept that "all writing is fiction" might hold
some
> water, but in many other respects it doesn't. Orwell himself toys with
the
> ramifications of the concept in 1984, satirically writing "the
Ministry of
> Truth, which concerned itself with news, entertainment, education, and
the
> fine arts" and then depicting the way that the Inner Party utilizes
its
> contempt
> for facts to keep the general population disoriented and open to
> manipulation. Orwell presents a similar scenario in Animal Farm.
> 
> Pynchon observes that "It has become a commonplace circa 2003 for
> government
> employees to be paid more than most of the rest of us to debase
history,
> trivialize truth, and annihilate the past on a daily basis." It
strikes me
> that people

Without wishing to disturb the ongoing festivities, I guess this is
aimed at me, big surprise ...

> who proclaim that "all writing is fiction" without bothering
> to offer reasonable qualifications might also be trivializing truth.
I'm
> not
> stating this to attack anyone--I'm merely trying to point out that
there
> are
> good and perhaps crucial reasons for respecting the distinctions.
>

Upon reflection, I think, above all, I enjoy most the "without bothering
to offer" line. Looking a way down the road, I see myself accused of
some kind of reactionary postmodernist relativism. Is that a curve-ball
or what?

Fact is, I've offered, over the past weeks, quite a lot in the way of
explaining where I'm at. I've complained repeatedly (to the amusement of
one and all) that, all too often, those with nothing to say come forward
and say it, and offer nothing constructive to counter my approach to
textual analysis (sorry, jbor, "interpretation" - and I didn't forget
the scare-quotes, you've trained me well).

If I've not said enough, not "bothered" to please you, I guess it's
because I can't be "bothered" to go on pissing in the wind. Tell you
what, davemarc, ask the moronic twins. Trouble is, you'll have to
decipher their semi-articulate grunts. Better still, ask Terrance, he
knows exactly how much I know. And yes, I know he jumps about like a
flea on acid, but at least he's good for a laugh, and laughing's always
preferable to thinking.

The edit is significant, I think. You cut off P in full flow. He
continues: "Those who don't learn from history used to have to relive
it, but only until those in power could find a way to convince
everybody, including themselves, that history never happened, or
happened in a way best serving their own purposes ..."

Precisely. History is contested knowledge. We have to know how we've
arrived at what we know. The "distinctions" you speak of, funnily
enough, what Foucault calls "truth-games" or "regimes of truth", are
defined by those who have the power to do so at any given time.
Everything I've written has targeted that, but I guess there aren't
enough laughs in history.