"fascistic disposition" paragraph

[barbara100 at jps.net]

From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
"those among us" in the first sentence - whether
he means "us" in terms of everyone, or "us" in terms of people like himself
and Orwell and others within the Western intelligentsia

Oh hell no! He means you and me, Jbor! Especially you...



----- Original Message -----
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: "fascistic disposition" paragraph


> >> The generalisations which Pynchon makes, about people's
> >> attitudes to what govts do when one's homeland is under attack, can be
> >> applied beyond the specific reference to situations from before WW II,
after
> >> it, recently, currently, and, potentially, on into the future.
>
> on 13/5/03 1:09 AM, s~Z wrote:
>
> > And all he does is make generalisations about people's attitudes.
Nowhere in
> > the essay does he state his opinion about government control during
wartime.
> > So, applying his 'point' to 9/11 ends up meaning applying
generalisations
> > about people's attitudes, not applying Pynchon's opinion about
government
> > control during wartime. He doesn't offer one.
>
> I'm inclined to think he does side with Orwell on that issue, although I
> agree he never quite brings himself to say it straight out in this
> particular paragraph. But, yes, he's talking about people's attitudes. I
> wonder a little about the "those among us" in the first sentence - whether
> he means "us" in terms of everyone, or "us" in terms of people like
himself
> and Orwell and others within the Western intelligentsia who have and have
> had a public voice and an apportunity to shape the opinion of "the proles"
> (who are comprised by the "no one is likely to be listening" group, and
the
> "electorate" in the following paragraph)?
>
> When Pynchon does eventually make a specific reference to "the present-day
> United States" a couple of pages later (and if he'd already been referring
> to "the present-day United States" in the earlier paragraph then this
overt
> identification of a new discursive context on pp. xii-xiii is uncohesive)
> his attitude towards US government systems, media control, political
> propaganda and the like, is made more explicit. While he doesn't have
> anything specific to say about 9/11 or the Patriot Act here either, his
> attack on American systems of power is of a piece with the criticism of
> American government *in toto* in his fictions and elsewhere.
>
> best
>
>