1984 Foreword "fascistic disposition"

[Paul Nightingale]

Terrance wrote:
> 
> Indirectly?
> 
> Recall that critics were quite certain that P was writing in some kind
> of code (ironic allusions to Reagan/1984-speak) in the Slow Learner
> Introduction. These critics were wrong. These critical readings were
> proven to be absurd and fantastic right here on Pynchon-L.
>
As a lurker, on and off, since the GR reading, and poster, on and off,
since the M&D reading I find "absurd and fantastic" the use of the word
"proven" here on the p-list. I stand by the following statement:
> 
> > Given that he's discussing precisely the kind of situation
> > that has come about in the US after 9/11 it's reasonable to infer
that
> > he expects the reader to make connections.
> 
9/11 might or might not have changed 'the world'; but it certainly
changed the way 'we' think about 'the world'. The events of that day and
what has happened subsequently have to be a reference point for anyone
reading the passage in question.
>
> If he writes in code or only
> indirectly about 9-11 and the aftermath, why?
> 
He's a writer. The Foreword gives him an opportunity, not to say Orwell
was right, but to discuss the contemporary world (and his own concerns
as a writer) in a different way. We still have to pay rather more
attention to his writing here. On the one hand, you (and others) have
accused P of saying nothing new - your own phrase, I recall, was "old
hat". On the other hand, you now complain that he hasn't written what
you expected him to write. So - which is it?