1984 Foreword "fascistic disposition"

[Paul Nightingale]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On
> Behalf Of Paul Mackin
> Sent: 02 May 2003 13:24
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Subject: Re: 1984 Foreword "fascistic disposition"
> 
> On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 03:20, Paul Nightingale wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 
> 
> But it is ALREADY so simple. I said what I did. How I had come up with
> my rewrite. The four sentences I wrote are as follows:
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
Thankyou. That is indeed what you wrote. My response is included in the
two paragraphs immediately below:

I'm not sure what "reading between the lines" means. I think I know what
you think it means, a kind of loyalty to "what P. actually wrote".
However, if you're saying it's possible to separate, not just
theoretically but in practice, the acts of reading and writing, then I
suppose you've found something else for us to disagree on.

You then contradict yourself in your second paragraph when you describe
a value-judgement that imposes meaning on "what P. actually wrote". Hmm
...

End of quotation, back to the present. At this point you decided to
explain what you meant by "reading between the lines": references to
9/11 etc. As you will see from my response above to your initial post, I
accepted (even though I disagreed) that you wanted to argue for "loyalty
to 'what P. actually wrote'".

You concluded: "How's that for a start?" To which I replied as follows:

How's what for a start? All you've done is quote chapter and verse on
something that wasn't at issue while ignoring what I think is a more
substantial point ... and I then repeat the reference to your
contradictory value-judgement.

To which you reply: "'What' is what you've deleted, what you don't want
anyone to see because it's too incriminating."

By now, I hope we can agree, it has become just a little bit silly.

I'm not interested so much in the fact of your rewriting/redrafting of
P., since that, as I've already made clear several times, is what we're
all doing, one way or the other. To read is to rewrite: I cannot make it
any clearer than that. So whether or not the missing quote goes back in
is not, at this time, the issue.

However, in your first post, you do contradict yourself. This is what I
wanted to address then, and it's what I want you to address now. You say
what's important is what P. actually wrote; no reading between the lines
allowed. You then contradict this claim to value-freedom by making a
value-judgement. Again, I don't have a problem with the fact that you've
made a value-judgement; I would simply like to hear how you square that
with your earlier claim to value-freedom.

What you call "reading between the lines" is interacting with the words
on the page, bringing your own knowledge and experience (and yes,
personal biases) to the text. It's what makes reading a
socially-constructed activity. Not doing this is, to my mind, not
possible.