1984 Foreword "fascistic disposition"

[jbor]

>> 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.

on 1/5/03 11:03 PM, Malignd wrote:

> So we agree on who's calling what unseemly, but
> disagree as to tone--no small thing--and this hangs on
> what is meant by "unseemly," or so it reads to me.
> 
> You're saying, I think, that Pynchon intends the word
> to convey an attitude akin to being offended by brown
> socks and black shoes, "bad form, old man," etc.; I've
> obviously thought he meant something more serious and,
> I admit, your reading--the intended sarcasm--hadn't
> until now occurred to me.  The overall meaning of the
> passage can certainly swing on that difference.
> 
> Despite the Harumph Twins bloviating to the contrary
> ("conservative apologetics,"), I have no political axe
> to grind, no problem believing P intended as you
> suggest, no stake in seeing him on one side or the
> other (sides, frankly, I didn't know existed until
> people started strutting their dudgeon).  But I don't
> see how one can come down finally, firmly, for one or
> another reading of this, other than in insisting that
> the P one knows and loves could never opine something
> so, well, unseemly, as that proferred by those reading
> differently.

I understand what you're saying, have no particular political axe to grind
either, do respect you and your take on the passage, but I disagree. When I
first read the paragraph I thought it odd and queried it, but I was querying
the history and the opinions, not the semantics of it. I've continued to
read it as I read it then, and I have to admit I can only barely see the
alternative reading you've offered, i.e. that Pynchon is in fact endorsing
what people of "fascistic disposition" point out in times of war and crisis,
and it has become less likely that this is what is implied each time a
little bit more of the surrounding context is revealed. I think he's taken
liberties with point of view and tone, and the style of the paragraph is
unusual for the context in which he is writing, but there it is. The only
thing that I didn't pick up on was the connection with 9/11 and after in the
U.S., but Otto has made the case for that pretty effectively.

But just because I read it in the way I do doesn't mean I swallow it for a
moment - the exorbitant generalisations and bizarre (and actually quite
offensive when you come to think about it) historical comparisons, the
mealy-mouthedness and snide put-downs which are concealed therein, the
unwillingness to say straight out what he actually means - it's facetious
and smarmy and disrespectful. It's a major cop-out: all the "maybes" and
"not necessarilys" and "could be argueds". Chomsky Lite.

best