Orwell & Nineteen Eighty-Four

[Terrance]

Malignd wrote:
> 
> <<He is an uncanny blend of erudition and whimsy.
> It's what I like about him. He doesn't take himself,
> nor his opinions too seriously. >>
> 
> All well and good that you like that about him.  But
> you could say the same thing about Russell Baker or
> Clive James or ... Art Linkletter.  Nothing wrong with
> them, I suppose, but you're not likely to hear theirs
> among names suggested for the Nobel Prize.
> 
> Orwell's a very particular figure--in his writing, in
> his person, in his lingering effect and influence, a
> complex and fascinating subject at many levels, to
> whom Pynchon brings little insight and scant rigor.

Why are you looking for either from Tom Pynchon? He ain't gonna win no
nobel for his essays. If he does win a Nobel it will be for his novels.
He is surely one of the world's greatest novelists. I think I'm
beginning to see why Dave Monroe and Paul N. focused on the "Narrative" 
and on what Pynchon tells us about Pynchon and not Orwell or _1984_. The
Foreword is a typical Pynchon essay. The trouble you seem to be having
with his Foreword is that it doesn't say much that is original,
insightful, or interesting about either Orwell or _1984_. I agree. With
this in mind, I can't understand why the guy would do it. Another
problem with the Foreword is that it is poorly written. I could rip it
apart but I don't want to give Doug a heart attack. Paul M. is being
quite kind when he says that the Foreword reads like a patched together
or cut up longer essay. This is how Pynchon writes--loopy, fragmented. 
Moreover, his prose are confusing. Most of all, I think it lacks a set
of balls. If the guy wants to call the Bush people fascists, why doesn't
he just come out and say it?