1984 Foreword "fascistic disposition"

[Scott Badger]

Rob:
>No, I think what Pynchon is saying is that those of "fascistic
disposition",
>or those who "are all too ready to justify" whatever the govt does (like
the
>proles and the Party faithful in _1984_) perceive arguments like Orwell's,
>critiques of their own govts etc, as "unseemly" in times of war and duress.
>It's Pynchon's choice of word, but he's using it sarcastically to imply
that
>people who take that attitude are a bit precious and condescending.
>
>I have to say that I agree completely with Otto's reading of the section,
>and the case he makes for imbedded allusions to 9/11 and the consequent
>assault on civil liberties by the American govt is sound imo.

Which is my take as well, though, admittedly, after several readings. Of
course, I wouldn't admit, even here...especially here..., how many times
I've dived into GR, and how much of that text I'm still trying to get my
head around.

The last two sentences are tricky though. From what comes before, the
"unseemly" arguments would appear to be those against "fascistic" actions,
even during war-time. And the Churchill bit could be read, not as support
for the suspension of some civil-liberties during war-time, but, still, as a
challenge to those that hold civil liberties above all else i.e. would the
greater risk of military defeat of Britain, and "nazi-rule all over
Europe"(Otto), *really* have been worth the preservation of those freedoms
restricted by the Churchill cabinet. But, the way the last sentence begins,
"One could certainly argue[...]", does keep tripping me up. It suggests,
instead, that a supportive statement will follow. For example, a
contemporary fascistic state that can be traced back to such war-time
"expediencies".

If, on the other hand,  the Churchill cabinet is offered as an example of
the restriction of civil-liberties as *acceptable* in certain situations,
then wouldn't it follow that the "unseemly" arguments (that are not
necessarily wrong) are those that support such restrictions? And then, how
would "prophecy" (_1984_, right?) fit in?

Whack, whack, whack.

Scott Badger