1984 Foreword "fascistic disposition"

[Paul Nightingale]

>From Terrance:

> Paul Nightingale wrote:
> > >
> > My understanding of narrative is that it treats as a text anything
that
> > might be relevant to our understanding of a topic.
> 
> 
> Well, that's fine with me, but you must know that this use of the term
> "narrative" assumes, shall we say, "a linguistic turn" that is at best
a
> theoretical approach to literature that has been applied to Pynchon &
> Co.,  and has never, as far as I'm concerned, been part of his
project.

A couple-three points, I suppose. (1) I prefer what Michael Pickering
has called "the turn to ordinariness" (derived from Williams' "culture
is ordinary"). Literature stops being something grand; it becomes a
signifying practice like any other. If this is a "theoretical approach
to literature" it only means I'm honest about what I'm doing, I don't
pretend that reading is not a social activity. (2) You might of course
be alluding to something called practical criticism, based on a close
reading of the words on the page. My approach has, at times, included
that. The words on the page are where we start. But no one, not even
those who try to kid themselves, ever stop there. (3) And your "as far
as I'm concerned" doesn't, of course, invalidate my view that Pynchon's
writing is a remarkable demonstration of the turn to ordinariness (but
that's for another day, and time and place, so apologies for introducing
it here).


> The term "narrative" was around long before the so-called "linguistic
> turn," And so while I've no interest in foreclosing your "narrative"
> reading of the Pynchon Foreword, I think that it is fair to stand (for
> example, as Paul M. has) firmly against your "narrative" approach.

Lots of words have been around a long time. So what? I'm interested,
though, in the distinction you make between my narrative reading and my
narrative approach. In the interests of fair play you'll allow me my day
in court, but I'm crazy as hell so nothing I say counts. I cannot accept
the distinction you make: the reading is the approach.

 Your
> narrative approach has tendered a "between the lines" reading and has
> jumped to conclusions about _1984_ that simply can not be supported by
> the text. I think Paul M., has identified the crux of the
> problem--anticapitalism and so on.

And of course I'm still unhappy with "between the lines" (not that you
or anyone else could give a damn). It suggests a possible reading that
is not "between the lines". You tried this before when we discussed the
Yankees' (I think) game. You said you might be interested in 'just' the
result. I said the result was meaningless if you didn't put it into a
narrative (ie read it). I think you accepted that point. If not I
apologise for saying the same thing twice.

And I haven't "jumped to conclusions". The approach I adopt is based on
the view that such attempts at closure are impossible, so all I could
ever do is indicate possible meanings that are plausible or not. It's
those who have rubbished my approach who insist on jumping to
conclusions, I'm afraid.

Finally, and unfortunately, Paul M. has identified nothing. He failed to
write two sentences without contradicting himself, and then refused to
take the time to clarify what he meant.