1984 Foreword "fascistic disposition"

[Otto]

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: 1984 Foreword "fascistic disposition"


> on 2/5/03 5:44 PM, Otto wrote:
>
> > Is it really absurd? "the corruption of spirit, the irresistible human
> > addiction to power" are both important topics of the novel and Pynchon
seems
> > to say that Orwell must have observed something similar in British
post-war
> > politics as in the war cabinet.
>
> I just think that there are many many more differences than there are
> similarities between Attlee's post-war govt and Hitler's or Stalin's
> regimes, and that to fail to acknowledge this is poor history. And I think
> that trying to distort _1984_ into a critique of the British Labour party
of
> the time is far-fetched. So, I guess I'm disagreeing with Pynchon on these
> two points: no huge drama.
>

I agree to both sentences in that there are more differences than
similarities but I don't think it's poor history on Pynchon's side. And I
agree that our disagreement is no huge drama, because I think our agreement
about the general relevance of "1984" for "GR" is much bigger.

> Both "corruption of spirit" and "irresistible human addiction to power"
are
> pretty nebulous categories, though they are certainly major themes in
_1984_
> as you say, but there's also the same question of degree, and of how these
> things translated in real terms for the subject populations under the
Nazis
> or Stalin, as compared to Britain in 1945-8. I wonder if what Pynchon is
> identifying is something which is common to all systems of government, and
> so picking out those three examples only and labelling them as "fascist"
is
> somewhat specious. Is Pynchon anti-government? And, if so, what's the
> alternative he proposes?
>

1. It's that opacity that makes both novels more warnings than descriptions
of real conditions.

2. Like I get it from that "mysterious" first sentence of the initial post
it's to stay critical of all kind of Doublethink, especially of government
action that goes wrong, when it's being done wrong in defense of the right
principles that are being defended, thus when our rules & values are
(self-defined) defended and violated (objectively) at the same time.

> >> But, as often in his fiction also, the bulk of Pynchon's political
swipes
> > in
> >> the Foreword seem directed at the political Left which, as always, is
> >> proving a little tough for some here to acknowledge and accept.
> >>
> >
> > In critisizing the Left of having fallen to Doublethink too (accepting
the
> > Gulag as 'socialist' while rejecting the Kz as fascist) this is of
course
> > directed at the political Left but it's not at all embracing the
political
> > Right. Neither in Orwell nor in Pynchon.
>
> I agree. My point is that, leaving aside Nazism, Fascism and Stalinism for
a
> moment, what is often overlooked or evaded is that political critique in
> Pynchon's fiction and non-fiction (as in Orwell's) isn't restricted to
> Republican and Conservative governments: Truman, JFK and LBJ cop serves in
> P's work as much as, if not more so than, Reagan and the Bushes do.
> Likewise, Leftist political organisations, such as PR3 and 24fps in
> _Vineland_, and anti-Establishment cabals like the Tristero and the
> Counterforce, are satirised quite scathingly.
>
> > But a Pynchon uncritical of the
> > Left too when it comes to politics wouldn't be a Pynchon.
> >
> > What strikes me is how "1984" blurs those political categories into a
single
> > one: totalitarian. There's no capitalism, socialism or fascism in the
novel.
> > Goldstein's book describes all systems as essentially the same. This can
be
> > compared to "GR" where the "They"-system is operating on both sides too
and
> > in all parties involved.
>
> Reading _1984_ again this week I'm struck by just how influential it has
> been on Pynchon, on _GR_ in particular. Pynchon's "They" and Orwell's "the
> Party" are pretty much one and the same, an entity or category which is
both
> self-perpetuating and beyond individual humans, but which everyone is
> implicated in or complicit with in some way. There are lots of small
details
> as well, such as when Winston starts to believe that O'Brien's "mind
> *contained*" his own, which reminds me of the confrontation between Roger
> and Geza Roszavolgyi in Pointsman's office (633-4), and the scenes where
> Winston is interrogated and starts to comprehend and succumb to
> "doublethink" contain details and imagery which are reminiscent of
> Tchitcherine's haunting (703-6), and the experiments on Slothrop at St
> Veronica's as well. And, of course, there's the "slow learner" label
Pynchon
> takes from _1984_ for the title of his own collection of stories. It's a
> conscious tribute to Orwell's novel, even though the stories themselves
bear
> little relation to it.
>
> best
>

I couldn't agree more to literally all of this, but most of all I agree to
this which I like to emphasise:

> Reading _1984_ again this week I'm struck by just how influential it has
> been on Pynchon, on _GR_ in particular. Pynchon's "They" and Orwell's "the
> Party" are pretty much one and the same, an entity or category which is
both
> self-perpetuating and beyond individual humans, but which everyone is
> implicated in or complicit with in some way.

Otto