Religious Fundamentalism in Orwell and Pynchon

[Paul Mackin]

On Mon, 2003-05-19 at 11:47, Paul Nightingale wrote:
> > -----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."

Exactly.

> 
> Hence, what you offer above as a restatement (of my question) is in fact
> a revision of your own original statement.

Same meaning however.


>  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.

Correct. More or less.


>  There is also (3) the (implied?)
> assumption that a novelist is better off not thinking too much.

Now we shift from the stated to the implied. 

>  He can,
> perhaps, think a little; but it's not a good idea to get carried away.


He must think a lot. He must get very very carried away. As Pynchon
does. It's a different kind of thinking. Different side of the brain
maybe. It can't be overly bound down by the need for philosophical
consistency and coherence or historical accuracy. The imagination has to
be allowed to soar.

> 
> One might say the philosopher and/or historian are also writing fiction
> (in the broader sense of writing-as-construct, knowledge production);

Oh yes of course there is always THAT. Everything is fiction and it's
all only writing. However philosophers and historians have to at least
pretend that this is not so.


> although one should also acknowledge that writing in different genres
> will be read differently (itself another aspect of knowledge
> production).

This is a pretty important acknowledgment in this discussion.


>  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.

I don't see the novelist as lower down the pecking order. There are good
and bad novelists, historians, and philosophers.


>  Is it because the novelist must wait to be
> visited by his muse and then, once inspired, can dash it off without
> breaking sweat?
> 
Not at all.

You seem to be maintaining a sense humor about all of this. I therefore
will retract and apologize for using the term dotty in connection with
your slightly more truculent earlier post. It's a pleasure talking to
you.

P.