1984 Foreword "fascistic disposition"

[Paul Mackin]

My approach to the paragraph was to try to understand and possibly allow
others to understand what Pynchon actually wrote. No "reading between
the lines" was permitted. 

The one real "violence" I did Pynchon's language was taking out the
"fascistic disposition" reference. I did this on the grounds that it was
distracting to use such a harsh even if meaningless term on people whose
only sin was recognizing that under wartime conditions certain
restrictions on civil liberties are necessary. 

P.




On Thu, 2003-05-01 at 03:08, Paul Nightingale wrote:

> > 
> > The first part of P's first  sentence is dreadful. To me the word
> > "fascistic" sounds at least in part like sarcasm or extreme hyperbole,
> > because in point of literal fact there is nothing heinous about
> pointing
> > out that full civil liberties, etc., may be a luxury that wartime
> > exigencies cannot afford? However the reader can't be sure Pynchon
> > doesn't perhaps actually mean "fascistic" here to some degree
> literally.
> > We (or I should say I) hoped this was not so for the simple reason
> that
> > it doesn't make literal sense. This is why in my own revision of the
> > paragraph I completely redid the first half of the first
> > sentence,leaving out the questionable sarcasm.
> >
> I fail to see why the sentence doesn't make "literal sense". It does to
> me. There is nothing wrong with "fascistic" (as a word, I'm not so happy
> about the tendencies). Why is it "extreme hyperbole"? That would suggest
> that Pynchon is caricaturing reality. In fact, you then go on to
> caricature what P wrote. I hope he offers you the job of editor on his
> next novel - man, his writing needs a little attention.

> > 
> > (Let me dispose of the awful possibility (as Father Rapier might put
> it)
> > that P is picking up completely on 1984 (in which if I remember
> rightly
> > Oceana is ALWAYS being bombed) and is assuming in this paragraph that
> > wartime is the ONLY time and that what the pointer-outers are pointing
> > out is that there was and is NEVER NEVER NEVER a time for the luxury
> of
> > civil liberties and other expectations of normalcy. It would be a
> pretty
> > crazy take off point for a serious discussion, but I thought I'd
> better
> > cover the base in case someone besides me thought of it.)
> >
> In fact Stalin's Russia from the early-30s assumed a state of ongoing
> war against capitalism. During the cold war 'encirclement' described the
> way in which the enemy had surrounded the country and attack/invasion
> was imminent. Goofy moustache thinking, of course. Nowadays, in the war
> against terrorism, the enemy is everywhere and might strike at any
> moment - similar fears shaped attitudes in WW2 Britain (eg your own
> reference to careless talk) and justified, not just reasonable
> curtailment of civil liberties but measures that were questioned by
> many, not just on the left. Angus Calder's excellent The People's War
> describes the radicalisation of those who would previously have thought
> themselves law-abiding moderates (as indeed happens now, every time the
> police attack a peaceful demo).


> >
> > .
> > Now for Paul's specific points 1-6:
> > 
> Well, holding my breath here, I get away with it for 1-3. I get away
> with it for 4 until:
> > 
> > "Unseemliness" sounds a bit
> > weak if
> > by it is meant "harmfulness," which I think makes the most sense.
> > 
> > Is this another bit of tongue in cheek?
> >
> Are you saying unseemliness = harmfulness? Because it doesn't. Are you
> saying Pynchon has used the word in this way? Because he hasn't. It's an
> unusual word, admittedly, which means we might pay a bit more attention
> to why he has used it. I know P's not a very good writer, and he does
> need a decent editor badly, but humour me here. If something is unseemly
> it is inappropriate. The word connotes the impropriety of one's actions.
> The arguments/prophesy in question are considered unseemly. One commits
> a social faux pas by asking politely for a by-election to be held during
> wartime (one of the examples discussed by Calder). Bad manners. It might
> be thought "tongue in cheek". Perhaps irony.
> > 
> > 
> > > In the second part of the paragraph P deals with the prewar thinking
> > > that has opposed undemocratic government. Be it an argument or a
> > > prophesy of what will or might happen.
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > The problem was there wasn't really a discussion of prewar thinking in
> > this particular segment. Prewar thinking was more referred to than
> > described.
> >
> I wrote "deals with"; not "discusses" or "describes". He alludes to it.
> Prewar thinking is clearly the subtext, or part of it.
> > 
> > 
> > > 5. This argument is based on principles that are not opportunistic,
> as
> > > the measures introduced by Churchill's war cabinet, as cited, might
> be
> > > described.
> > 
> > .
> > Using the term "opportunistic" to describe Churchill's actions implies
> > he was using wartime necessity merely as an excuse  to introduce harsh
> > restrictions on freedom, when the overwhelming preponderant view was
> > that the restrictions on actions and freedoms were necessary to
> winning
> > the war.
> >
> Some restrictions might be considered necessary. Others follow as a
> matter of course. Once They have got this law through, They'll try it on
> with something more extreme. P is talking about the way power is
> exercised. WW2. Bush's America post-9/11. Britain in the 1980s, when
> Thatcher's government pushed through one anti-trade union measure after
> another. Thatcher, incidentally, spoke of the miners as "the enemy
> within". Which I think also starts to cover your objections to point 6:
> >
> >
> > > 6. Viewed objectively, leaving aside for one moment the
> circumstances,
> > > and any justifications arising from those circumstances, the
> government
> > > has behaved in the same way as a fascist government.
> > 
> > I hope we don't leave "the circumstances" aside for too long a moment
> > because it cannot be assumed that the circumstances of WW II, namely
> the
> > need to win under quite unfavorable odds, were not at least as
> important
> > as following a strict adherence to peace time freedom of speech and
> > action. In other words you're not viewing things at all objectively.
> >
> Pynchon's point is polemical here. Given what has gone before, "the
> circumstances" are not only what can be described objectively, bombs
> falling, people dying etc, but also the way in which the government
> might exploit people's fears by forever invoking the threat of what
> might happen. Again, not just a wartime strategy. Don't rock the boat,
> we'll be invaded next week. Or, conventional business tactics in a
> peacetime capitalist economy: don't ask for a payrise, we can't afford
> it, you'll lose your job.
> >
> >
> > I'll stick with my original reconstruction, which was as logical as I
> > could make
> > it without taking Pynchon out completely.
> >
> Is "taking out" here Sopranospeak? More irony, I feel, from one who set
> out to rewrite what P wrote to make it fit in with what he, the dutiful
> editor, wanted it to mean.
> 
> 
>