Orwell & Nineteen Eighty-Four

[Paul Mackin]

On Tue, 2003-05-06 at 10:21, Richard Romeo wrote: 
> > --- jbor <jbor at bigpond.com> wrote:e/orwell/chen.htm
> > > Both are more informative and accurate than what
> > > I've seen of Pynchon's
> > > Foreword.
> > ---------------
> i've read the guardian excerpt (am i wrong but it's
> most the intro, no?--only a few paragraphs related to
> sex and such are omitted?--

Don't know. I'd though that perhaps the material chosen for the introduction
to 1984 was possibly excerpted from a longer essay on Orwell. This could
I thought be the explanation for what seemed to be the rather contextless
placement of the "fascistic disposition" paragraph. As well as other places
where a provocative point seems to get raised only to be immediately dropped.


 i did a quick review of the
> intro at a bookstore last night) and I found it quite
> informative and heartfelt

Yes, we should accentuate the positive. I liked for example the way P
handled 1984 and antisemitism. Also the point about Orwell's fear of 
losing his anger. Could this apply to Pynchon himself. Might it explain
why at time he seems to sound almost like something heard at a student radical
group street action.

I liked the fun poked at the incessant  Big Brother talk one used to or 
still tends to hear. "Wow, the government has turned into Big Brother, just 
like Orwell predicted!"  "Something, huh?" "Orwellian, dude!"

Not to be too complacent about it.

For me the most interesting commentary in the essay is on the question of
doublethink. Doublethink seems to undergo a kind of double whammy. Of course
doublethink is the very essence of Big Brotherism, so it is interesting to
find out that according of Social psychologists everyone does it.Of course this
is not news to modern sophisticated persons who know that lies are already present
in truth and war is already present in peace. But wait. There's a kind of
reversal. Apparently despite its ubiquitousness and potential for tyranny 
doublethink is in fact unsustainable. It has in fact died out we learn after
finishing the story proper. To top this off Pynchon quotes Orwell something
to the effect that slavery (and what was Big Brotherism but a slave state) 
is not sustainable either. This is exceedingly good news and something we must
not become too complacent about..


There are elements of the essay that are NOT very informative? .

In describing Orwell's "intentions" ideas are jambed together too densely.
He had, sez P, quickly learned the difference between real and phoney antifascists. 
What is the difference exactly? The word fascist needs defining.  What is the 
dissident left? What is being to the left of the left? Can you be so far left
you're right? Are British workers really idealists to be exploited by politicians
or do they simply prefer to get enough to eat, something they didn't get under
the Conservatives.

I wondered if Pynchon's view of the British Labour party is as extreme as he
claims Orwell's to be.  Only interested in maintaining their own power seems
very unlikely to a present day viewer. Of course a party MUST strive to
maintain its power. Think of the alternative. Putting the Tories in control.


Though it might have been unseemly for Pynchon to second guess Orwell's
views to a very marked degree we the current readers need to know if any
of them were downright wrong or grossly exaggerated. 


 For me the really weak elements are the "fascistic disposition"
paragraph, and such things as describing the Internet as "a development
that promises social control on a scale those quaint old 20th Century
tyrants with their goofy moustaches could only dream about." 

 touching--I think Pynchon is addressing future
> generations, no?
> don't think Pynchon was writing any type of
> treatise--just being himself as usual.


Yes I agree.