"fascistic disposition" paragraph

[Paul Nightingale]

jbor wrote:
> 
> I think I agree with s~Z that Pynchon is making a "generalisation" or
> three
> in the paragraph. But the counter-argument that it is "both" a
"general"
> allusion and at the same time a specific "reference" to Bush and 9/11
> makes
> no sense at all.
>

I assume jbor's comments above refer to my own post. If not I apologise
for the unseemliness of my intervention. What I actually wrote was:

"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."

I would appreciate having it explained to me how the statement I posted
(as opposed to the transformed version) "makes no sense at all".

Elsewhere, jbor has suggested that the subsequent direct references to
government departments negate the possibility that P., when he chooses,
will write indirectly:

"Pynchon is explicit when later he does discuss 'the Department of
Defense', 'Department of Justice' and the FBI (xiii), so why would he
switch into cryptic mode in a passage which is significantly less
damning than the later one?"

This indeed is a "counter-argument" that "makes no sense at all" if you
bother to deal with P.'s writing as writing: ie what is the discursive
function of the two passages?

























> best
> 
> 
> >> I don't think the tense shift in the middle paragraph signifies a
> change in
> >> Pynchon's "train of thought". He's referring to how people during
WWII
> (and
> >> people today - "those among us") did and do respond to Orwell's
> criticisms
> >> of Churchill's coalition government.<
> 
> on 9/5/03 9:47 AM, barbara100 at jps.net at barbara100 at jps.net wrote:
> 
> > I don't know. I'm a little doubtful. Who among us (except a select
> super-smart
> > few) knows shit about Orwell's criticism of Churchill's coalition
> government?
> > Up until this Foreword came out, "most people were content to read
> [1984] as a
> > straightforward allegory about the melancholy fate of the Russian
> revolution,"
> > right? Knowing your average reader, which I bet Pynchon does, it's
much
> more
> > reasonable to think he's referring to what's happening today in the
> United
> > States in that "fascistic disposition" paragraph.
> > About the "bowdlerisation" I can't say. I copied it that way from
the
> > Guardian.
> >
> >
> > ---- Original Message ----
> > Barbara:
> >>> I mean, why switch tenses if he was only continuing along the some
> >>> old of train of thought?
> >
> > Jbor:
> >> I think it's probably reasonable to infer from this passage, and
> others,
> > what Pynchon's attitude to Bush and the Patriot Act and whatever
might
> be,
> > but he isn't making an explicit reference here. The later comments
about
> > "the present day United States" are explicit, however, but his
> particular
> > targets there are three arms of the American system of government
which
> were
> > around long before 9/11.
> >
> > It's interesting that the quote provided below is again a
bowdlerisation
> of
> > Pynchon's text. Does the _Guardian_ edit leave out the paragraph
which
> is at
> > the bottom of p. 10? If so, it's a telling omission.
> >
> > best<
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Foreword:
> >>
> >> Now, those of fascistic disposition - or merely those among us who
> remain all
> >> too ready to justify any government action, whether right or wrong
-
> will
> >> immediately point out that this is prewar thinking, and that the
moment
> enemy
> >> bombs begin to fall on one's homeland, altering the landscape and
> producing
> >> casualties among friends and neighbours, all this sort of thing,
> really,
> >> becomes irrelevant, if not indeed subversive. With the homeland in
> danger,
> >> strong leadership and effective measures become of the essence, and
if
> you
> >> want to call that fascism, very well, call it whatever you please,
no
> one is
> >> likely to be listening, unless it's for the air raids to be over
and
> the all
> >> clear to sound. But the unseemliness of an argument - let alone a
> prophecy -
> >> in the heat of some later emergency, does not necessarily make it
> wrong. One
> >> could certainly argue that Churchill's war cabinet had behaved on
> occasion no
> >> differently from a fascist regime, censoring news, controlling
wages
> and p!
> >> rices, restricting travel, subordinating civil liberties to self-
> defined
> >> wartime necessity.
> >>
>