1984 Foreword "fascistic disposition"

[Malignd]

<<Menand might be analogous to the "official left,"
i.e., elitist, unable to do much more than score
points by being "contoversial" in a "smart" way, but
altogether co-opted and as much a part of the status
quo as establishment conservatives. Likewise, those
who published retorts to Menand's article- Leon
Wieseltier and Christopher Hitchens- all together, a
tempest in an inner party teapot.>>

And so you label such discourse and the publications
that provide them--The New Yorker, the New York Review
of Books--as elitist and coopted, outlets for the
scoring of "contoversial" points.

You're point is patently foolish, and reveals an
all-but-total ignorance of the writers you name, but
it would have been fun to see you actually try to make
it with some discussion of the articles you so readily
dismiss.

<<Pynchon, however, by remaining as unco-opted as he
has over the years, is much closer to the "dissident
left" where Pynchon places Orwell himself, i.e., left
of left, and is able to offer a fascinating
perspective denied those who are more dependent on
media exposure ...>>

It's easy to posit but difficult to say with any
authority where Pynchon stands politically in other
than the most extremely general sense, in that his
contributions are infrequent and, when offered,
unspecific when not vague (when not jejune like his
comments in the Playboy interview).  If if you find
his perspective fascinating, one concludes you're
rather easily fascinated.
   
<<The best way to avoid the duplicity of the anterooms
is to stay in the backroom, or better, the backroom's
backroom, where it's a little easier to tell the
rubbish from the reality.>>

The best way to ensure the cobwebbing of your ideas is
to withdraw or refrain from challenge and debate.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com