Religious Fundamentalism in Orwell and Pynchon

[Paul Mackin]

On Sun, 2003-05-18 at 20:46, Terrance wrote:
> jbor wrote:
> > 
> > >>> I'm not sure what, exactly, Pynchon means by "the religious wars with which
> > >>> we have become all too familiar, involving various sorts of fundamentalism".
> > >>>
> > >>> Ayatollah Khomeini? Pakistan v. India?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Too bad P didn't say more about this.
> > >
> > > In the Luddite essay he hooks it up with the machine.
> > 
> > In the Foreword he hooks it up with anti-Semitism, which might imply that
> > he's referring to the long-standing conflict in the Middle East. If he is,
> > it's not really "fundamentalism" or a "religious war" like, say, the
> > Crusades were religious wars.
> 
> Can never tell when P uses a term. Fascist and Sloth he sort of
> re-defines, but we can't even pin him down on those who deplore racial
> differences most. It's a problem and the implications are big. How does
> he reconcile the fundamentalist rejection of enlightenment progress, 
> individualism (Locke, we own ourselves), and technology with his luddite
> and American-Left sympathies? 




I guess as suggested by Terrance and Rob's inputs here the Pincher
doesn't always think things through too well. A blessing since a
novelist who tries to be at the same time a philosopher and/or historian
isn't going to be a great success.



Am I right in assuming Terrance's justification question is rhetorical?
> 
> An article worth reading. 
> 
> Islam and us 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,908217,00.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > It might have been lucky that he didn't say too much more about this and
> > that he just left it as a hopelessly vague assertion ("involving various
> > sorts of fundamentalism"), because I don't know that it holds up to much
> > scrutiny. It would have been an opportunity to connect fundamentalist
> > attitudes with ideology as a primary motivation behind post-1945 wars and
> > uprisings - capitalism, communism, nationalism, civil struggles between
> > different ethnic groups and interests etc, as variants of "fanaticism"
> > (though not really "religious" in any sense of the word) - but he doesn't do
> > that at all.
> > 
> > best
> 
> 
> Right, but of course this is exactly what he does in his novels.


If he does, he does it in a different way from if he were a philosopher.

Zadie Smith is also a novelist and a pretty enjoyable three plus hours
of TV was made from White Teeth. Just over.

P.