Orwell & Nineteen Eighty-Four

[Paul Mackin]

On Wed, 2003-05-07 at 13:17, Terrance wrote:
> 
> 
> 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?


The short answer is he'd heard Doug was doing this and didn't want to be
a copycat.

P.