1984 Foreword--Some Writing Is Truth?

[jbor]

on 7/6/03 6:37 AM, davemarc wrote:

> 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. 

The Ministry of Truth doesn't subscribe to the "all writing is fiction"
school of thought, however, which is essentially an imprimatur to read
(*all* texts) sceptically and critically, as one would read "fiction"; and
it's not the attitude which Orwell has targeted in his sights in the novel.
BB's rationale is along the lines of "might is right". In fact, what the
Ministry does is to alter the official record at will, and then impose these
revised versions as "history" and "fact", often so that the original event
or person is altered or entirely erased. Pynchon's questions and comments in
the 'Foreword' address the extent to which this happens in contemporary
society as well. 

The summa ad absurdum of the argument as "all writing is fiction" doesn't do
justice to the standpoint or its applications to "truth" and "reality",
which are, in its purview, always subjective constructs. I'd say that Orwell
probably did believe in the possibility that an originary "truth" or
"reality" might be represented in an objective way; Pynchon, on the strength
of his texts, far less so.

> 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 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.

More often, of course, the motive for insisting upon and trying to impose
these distinctions and hierarchies has to do with power and control. This is
something which both Orwell's novel and Pynchon's Foreword do illustrate.

best