Foreword, when is a homeland not a homeland?

[Paul Nightingale]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On
> Behalf Of s~Z
> Sent: 08 May 2003 22:04
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Subject: Re: Foreword, when is a homeland not a homeland?
> 
> >>>Of course P. might be alluding to Goebbels: his rhetoric is not
> dissimilar to Bush's here, even if you insist that the situations are
> quite different. However, Bush's use of the term "homeland" might, as
I
> suggested before, have more resonance with contemporary readers. And
> then again, maybe not.<<<
> 
> Why is it preferable to read the passage as an allusion to Bush as
opposed
> to a general statement about what happens in any country when the
homeland
> is attacked?

It is both. The passage offers a generalisation; this, by definition,
includes possible reference to current events. P has addressed the
relationship between Orwell's writing and contemporary society; it's
reasonable to infer that he himself has the US post-9/11 in mind.

> Granted the word 'homeland' is in our faces after 9/11 -

and P uses the word twice in the space of a few lines to emphasise the
point -
> , but
> why
> would a gifted writer -

aka Thomas ("shitty") Pynchon -

> use 'bombs falling' if he wants to make a point
> about
> 9/11? Why would he use Churchill as an example instead of Bush?

"Bombs falling" serves as a general term to cover all such situations.
If he wrote planes-flying-into-large-buildings it would limit the
allusion somewhat. Indeed, it would no longer be an allusion (meaning is
implicit, not explicit). The point concerns the consequences (regarding
people's perceptions) of such devastating attacks, whatever the precise
nature of the cause of such devastation. If you're on the receiving end,
it doesn't really matter. The Churchill ref returns the passage to
Orwell's time/context. Furthermore, it might well be that Churchill, as
a historical figure, has a reputation far greater than Bush's at present
(although quite possibly someone somewhere has called his leadership
'Churchillian') and that guarantees the impact of the passage.

> I don't
> for
> a minute interpret the passage as an allusion to Goebbels.

It might be; the speech as quoted was interesting because it
demonstrated that they always sing the same tune. I mentioned Stalin
previously. The Goebbels speech serves the same purpose. Political
rhetoric. An allusion doesn't have to be intentional. I happen to think
the allusion to the US 2003 is intentional; I've no way of knowing if P
did have Goebbels in mind. But simply to say Orwell was right, it's
happening now, right here - that would be trite and P himself mocks
those who go in for such point-scoring on behalf of Orwell.

> That speech
> just
> shows the universality of the dynamic TRP is writing about in the
> paragraph.
> And what better example than a fascistical speech. For me, the "9/11
> allusion reading" is too limiting to what TRP is addressing.

I don't understand "limiting" here. All I've said is that the
contemporary reader would be expected to pick up on it as an allusion.
But that allusion is one of many and comes in a passage designed to
generalise.