Religious Fundamentalism in Orwell and Pynchon

[Paul Nightingale]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On
> Behalf Of Paul Mackin
> Sent: 19 May 2003 15:25
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Subject: Re: Religious Fundamentalism in Orwell and Pynchon
> 
> 
> Mind if I restate the question.
> 
By all means, be my guest.
>
> Perhaps you could inspire me by explaining why it's a good idea for a
> novelist not to think too much like a philosopher or historian.
> 
> Answer: because a novelist isn't a philosopher or historian.
> 
> P.

Oh dear. Of course, what you actually wrote is this:

"... 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."

Hence, what you offer above as a restatement (of my question) is in fact
a revision of your own original statement. I do hope (perish the
thought) you're not trying to pull a fast one there. What you wrote
originally offers (1) the view that P doesn't (always) think things
through and (2) the (implied?) assertion that if he did he'd be trying
to be a philosopher or historian. There is also (3) the (implied?)
assumption that a novelist is better off not thinking too much. He can,
perhaps, think a little; but it's not a good idea to get carried away.

One might say the philosopher and/or historian are also writing fiction
(in the broader sense of writing-as-construct, knowledge production);
although one should also acknowledge that writing in different genres
will be read differently (itself another aspect of knowledge
production). Nonetheless, you do imply (that "too well" at the end of
the first sentence gives it away, I think) that there is a hierarchy of
thinking, one that sees the novelist lower down the pecking order than
the philosopher or historian. Is it because the novelist must wait to be
visited by his muse and then, once inspired, can dash it off without
breaking sweat?