"one's homeland"

[jbor]

on 16/5/03 12:12 AM, s~Z wrote:

> While I agree with jbor as far as he goes regarding such, I remain thrown
> off by the significance of the 'could' in the Churchill reference, and how,
> with the 'could' in place, it relates to what comes before.

I don't have a problem with the "could". For me it just means that it is
"possible" to argue this case, with the implication being that it is the
case Orwell made. It's not just a Churchill reference, it's a reference to
"Churchill's war cabinet", which included many of the Labour Party bigwigs
(Herbert Stanley Morrison was Minister of Supply and then Home Secretary, so
he was responsible for much of the restrictions on "civil liberties" which
Pynchon lists. Clement Attlee was Deputy Prime Minister from 1942.)

Certainly Pynchon is hedging his bets - all through the "fascistic
disposition" paragraph in fact - and just like he does in the earlier
passage where he writes of the "*alleged* Communist practice of
brainwashing, a set of techniques *said to be* based on the work of I.P.
Pavlov ... " (my itals). It's interesting to see the different ways his
hedging swings, first throwing doubt on accusations made against Stalin's
regime and then insinuating that the elected British government was
"fascist". It seems topsy-turvy to me.

best


> Bandwraith's
> take seems accurate. It seems to me that Pynchon has gone out of his way
> *not* to  make a clear judgment regarding our current situation while
> raising all of the important questions to be asked in light of current
> events.