"fascistic disposition" paragraph

[jbor]

>> 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.

on 9/5/03 8:53 PM, Paul Nightingale at isread at btopenworld.com wrote:

> 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".

Happy to. You argued that it is specifically (and intentionally) an allusion
to 9/11, and then later in the same post you asserted that Pynchon uses a
phrase such as "bombs falling" (let alone "air raids" and "the all clear"!)
which doesn't match this allusive context, but only because it is meant to
serve a more general allusive purpose also. But if the phrases don't apply
to the specific context you identified (9/11) in the first instance then how
does that context become situated in the more general category of experience
or behaviour which is being alluded to?

> 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?

The function of the later passage (xiii) is to validate the percipience of
Orwell's fictional vision. Pynchon makes a direct comparison between
Orwell's depictions of the three Ministries and "the Department of Defense",
"Department of Justice" and the FBI in "present-day United States".

The function of the earlier passage (ix-x) is to address Orwell's biography
and contemporary events as the context for his writing of the novel. Pynchon
elaborates on Orwell's attitudes, particularly his attitude towards the
British Labour Party, and the way these (and similar) attitudes were
received at the time, and subsequently.
 
best