1984 Foreword "fascistic disposition"

[Paul Mackin]

(the mailer is acting up so this may already have been received)


After two or more iterations the law of diminishing returns starts to
set in, but I'll give it one more shot.



On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 10:13, Paul Nightingale wrote: 
> > --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".

Yes, within human possibility. Naturally it would have been better not
to change the language at all. But we were in a definite bind about
meaning. There was perplexity about what words meant at their very
simplest. Especially what "fascistic" was supposed to imply. 

I gave examples of going beyond what I considered warranted. I used the
term "reading between the lines" because someone else had previously
used that expression. I said NOT "reading between the lines" was an
axiom of my methodology. I didn't explicit SAY you had violated this
rule although the examples I gave of violating it (seeing 9/11 in
Homeland, Soviet perpetual war against capitalism, Churchill's wartime
actions as tyrannical) were taken in part at least from the way you
seemed to have interpreted the paragraph. 


> 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.

I tried to produce something we ALL could agree on. (impossible dream)

Of course we all use writing (reading) for our own individual purposes.
But surely there is minimum substrate we must all work from. 

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

I tried to make the bare minimum of change necessary for the sentence to
be easily readable. Later, I went back and reduced the change still
further. Put "fascistic" back in.


> ...
> 
> 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'".


Not sure I understand you here but don't think I would disagree at least
not violently..


> 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.

Yes of course but why DID you delete my examples in your reply?
Not that it's a big deal.


> 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. 


Do you really mean "contradict" or do you only mean face a difficulty. I
did of course face a difficulty. I had to change Pynchon's words in
order to make them understandable. Understandable to me and hopefully
for others who might have been having trouble. .





> 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.

I tried to be as value-judgment-free as possible. Without some judgment
no change in P's words could be made. The exercise would have been
impossible. 

> 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.
> 

As someone once said, all readings are misreadings.