"fascistic disposition" paragraph

[Paul Mackin]

On Sat, 2003-05-10 at 12:55, barbara100 at jps.net wrote:
> > 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? 

The ranting in itself is not a problem. The problem is how much account
of it we should take in evaluating the fascistic disposition paragraph.
 

It seems you're not the
> only one afflicted by that around here.

Afflicted. Is that what you call the need to weigh in on possibly
relevant factors.


 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. 

Why?

But what's impolite next to Terrance
> telling poor Otto to fuck off? So why not:

Why not what?

 What's really at issue here in
> the Pynchon rants? Why does this list get so riled up whenever we talk about
> them?

OK, what's your favorite rant?


> Speaking for myself, it's the single-most reason I like his writing. I love
> it when he really sticks it to us.

A post from Barbara is always welcome. It means one fewer from the poor
put upon Major Frank Burns character.

P.. 
  


> 
> ----- 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>