"fascistic disposition" paragraph

[barbara100 at jps.net]

> Only problem for me is, in places the forward DOES sound like a bit of a
> rant.

So why is it a problem for you when Pynchon rants? It seems you're not the
only one afflicted by that around here. I've been secretly wanting to ask
the good Doctor Hilarious just that question, but I don't really know if he
is a doctor, so I thought it impolite. But what's impolite next to Terrance
telling poor Otto to fuck off? So why not: What's really at issue here in
the Pynchon rants? Why does this list get so riled up whenever we talk about
them?
Speaking for myself, it's the single-most reason I like his writing. I love
it when he really sticks it to us.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mackin" <paul.mackin at verizon.net>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2003 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: "fascistic disposition" paragraph


> On Sat, 2003-05-10 at 10:47, jbor wrote:
> > on 10/5/03 11:47 PM, Otto wrote:
> >
> > > I can accept when readers fail to see the (possible, maybe wrong)
> > > connection but I cannot see what's wrong about the discussion.
> >
> > on 10/5/03 11:47 PM, Otto wrote:
> >
> > > I guess I've been the first here who said: "My
> > > reading: from the WTC to Ground Zero," but this is no claim for
copyright
> > > because it's so obvious.
> > >
> > > It looks like if some people on the list have chosen
> > > not to interpret the
> > > obvious references in the text
> >
> > An example of doublethink?
> >
> > >From the actual language used in the paragraph, from its themes, style
and
> > tone, from its immediate context in terms of the preceding and following
> > paragraphs, from the way Pynchon does frame comments about the
"present-day
> > United States" elsewhere in the essay, from the inherent absurdity of
> > categorising 9/11 alongside WW II or Bush alongside Churchill, and from
the
> > fact that he's writing a Foreword to Orwell's _1984_ and not an op. ed.
rant
> > for Bitchslap.com, any actual reference to 9/11 and Bush in the
paragraph in
> > question seems highly unlikely. (NB "unlikely")
>
> Only problem for me is, in places the forward DOES sound like a bit of a
> rant.
>
> But even give this unfortunate fact, I think we need to give the Pyncher
> the benefit of the doubt and assume you are correct in your conclusion.
>
> P.
>
>
>
>