"fascistic disposition" paragraph

[Otto]

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: "fascistic disposition" paragraph
>
> on 14/5/03 3:49 PM, Otto wrote:
>
> > Nobody is a shitty writer only because some readers don't get the full
> > meaning of the writing.
>
> This was Paul Nightingale's argument too, that people who don't read it
> your
> way are deficient as readers. If Pynchon meant to refer to 9/11 then he
> wouldn't have described it as "the moment enemy bombs begin to fall".

That's exactly the point of our disagreement. He's no journalist. Don't
limit him that way. In my opinion he meant to refer to the moment from which
on a country feels as being at war. If you want to read an ad hominem
argument out of this I cannot convince you but I'm sure Paul had not
intended that like I didn't too. Remember the initial MalignD post from the
28th where a very controversial reading of the paragraph had been offered,
in which he said that "with a war on, one does best to shut up and support
the troops. Hardly a radical position (...)." In that post MalignD
complained about the "lack of context" -- all I did from the 30th on was
offering a context in which all Pynchon says makes perfect sense, luckily
not to me alone but to others too, including some reviewers like Knipfel and
the Germans Göttler and Ingendaay.

>(Note
> the way the use of the present tense in the sentence situates this as a
> hypothetical or generic proposition rather than as a specific event which
> has happened.) If a reference to 9/11 was intended, then it is "shitty"
> writing.
>

Precisely. You say there isn't is a reference to 9/11 but if there is one
meant then it's shitty writing because he made it so hard to get it. I call
that argumentation wrong. But I don't blame anybody for not seeing in the
text what I see given my general impression of the foreword. It's really
just a difference in interpretation.

> > In times of war (and we're at war right now) it's the general rule that
> > the truth is the first victim.
>
> World War II was a military war waged across the globe by many nations
> over
> a 6 year period. An estimated 15 million soldiers died. 35 million
> civilians. A generation lost. The current world situation is vastly
> different.
>

The argument was that in times of war as a general rule *truth* is the first
victim. That goes for WW2 as for the Punic wars or the latest Iraq-war. I
stopped counting how often Umm Kasr had been liberated, I was delighted by
Mohammed Said el Sahhaf. But I was stunned how cheaply Blair and Powell
dared to lie to the UN in preparing the war.

The USA haven't joined WW2 in 1941 because they liked the Europeans or they
wanted to save the Jews but because they have been attacked by Japan. For
them the war really began when "enemy bombs" (and some planes too) fell on
Pearl Harbour. The "Arizona," "Oklahoma," "California," "West Virginia" and
"Nevada" were sunk. 188 US planes were destroyed and 159 damaged. The Japs
lost 29 planes. The Americans had 1178 casualties and 2403 dead on that day.
Hitler declared war to the US following Japan without being forced to.

> > Do you really believe you have to tell me the meaning of the word
> > Blitzkrieg?
>
> You asked what "altering the landscape" had to do with the Blitz. It's
> what
> the dropping of German bombs on London did to the city and the surrounding
> area - it altered the landscape. You seemed to be disputing this fact. The
> Blitz was a time when actual "bombs" fell on London, "altering the
> landscape".
>

And 9/11 was the day when airplanes were turned into enemy bombs that fell
on NYC. I have stashed 11 megabytes of images of the attack and the
following Afghanistan-war & the war on terror on my pc. My question has been
why "altering the landscape" specifically should refer to the London-Blitz
and not to NYC. We don't remember the London-Blitz because of a special
destruction of this or that important building, but when NYC has been
blitzed a very special symbolical building has been hit that had defined the
skyline and symbolised the spirit of the most important city of the world.

> > I still don't see how the images apply to the Blitz specifically and not
> > to a country attacked in general (thus including 9/11)?
>
> I've stated time and again that there are more general ramifications in
> the
> paragraph. Our disagreement is simply about whether the paragraph refers
> specifically to the Blitz and the British politics during WW II, or
> whether
> it refers specifically to 9/11 and American politics since 2001. You're
> setting up a false binary, a straw man argument.
>

Which one? I said: "(...) a country attacked in general." If a country is
attacked these mechanisms begin to work. Everywhere. Always. Thus at the
moment too. Fact is that you can't rule out 9/11 here because the US are at
war since and because of 9/11, and not because they want to wipe out every
dictator with a goofy moustache.

> > But I think you did not accept this binary opposition of 'homeland
> > security'
> > versus 'civil liberties', what to me is the heart of the matter and,
> > what I
> > believe, is something he wants to point out to. Reading 'homeland
> > security'
> > in a post-9/11-text by Thomas Pynchon or any other postmodern writer
> > makes
> > my ears ring.
>
> The words "homeland security" aren't anywhere in the text. Like Barbara,
> you're rewriting it to make it say what you want it to say.
>

You can call me Barb as long as you don't call me ... (you know who). But
the point is:

"With the homeland in danger, strong leadership and effective measures
become of the essence..." (x) -- which can be correctly paraphrased with
"homeland security." No need to rewrite anything, it's all there if one
wants to see it.

> > Which is why I like Pynchon in his non-fiction texts who remains
> > critical
> > without taking sides, which is the real definition of 'dissident Left'.
>
> I don't know if anyone would agree with this definition. It's not the
> definition of "dissident Left" which Pynchon offers. Orwell certainly took
> sides on issues. Being critical without taking sides, and without
> proposing
> any constructive alternatives, is what I'd call being a fence-sitting
> crank.
>

I better not answer to the last sentence. There has been an alternative to
the last war, and I get the impression from the foreword that Pynchon is
pretty much aware that the US are at war, and he dislikes the consequences
this fact might have on his homeland. Is it really a legitimate wartime
necessity to ban the "Dixie Chicks" from the radio or is it proto-fascist
censorship?

> You seem to be arguing that your opinions and definitions are "real", mine
> aren't, and that historical evidence is irrelevant.

I don't know where you get the impression from that for me any expressed
opinion on this list is "irreal" (except one). You just seem to be arguing
that actual or more recent events then WW2 or Korea are irrelevant to the
foreword, no big thing, just a difference in opinion.

>The very point that
> Pynchon is making in the Foreword is that Orwell was concerned that a
> democratically-elected "'Socialist'" government (Attlee's in 1945-51)
> would turn into a fascist regime.
>

And he is concerned that this could happen to the US and Britain too in
times of war (xvi.18-20).

> He also doesn't make any significant distinction between Stalinism and
> Nazism (or British Labour!) in this respect:
>

That's unnecessary because Orwell was talking about totalitarianism in
general, without pushing or rejecting a special ideology.

>       What is clear from his letters and articles at the time he was
>     working on _1984_ is Orwell's despair over the postwar state of
>     "Socialism". What in Keir Hardie's time had been an honorable
>     struggle against the incontrovertibly criminal behavior of
>     capitalism toward those whom it used for profit had become, by
>     Orwell's time, shamefully institutional, bought and sold, in too
>     many instances concerned with maintaining itself in power. And
>     that was just in England - abroad, the impulse had been further
>     corrupted, in immeasurably more sinister ways, leading at length
>     to the Stalinist gulags and the Nazi death camps. (x-xi)
>
> It's interesting that there's none of that hedging from earlier in the
> essay
> in this particular paragraph (eg. "incontrovertibly criminal behavior",
> "had
> become", "in too many instances"). Pynchon certainly wears anti-capitalist
> sentiments on his sleeve here!
>
> best
>
>

I bet he does, because war mostly has to do with capitalist interests.

Otto