98% Orwell Free

[Paul Mackin]

On Mon, 2003-05-26 at 13:30, Paul Nightingale wrote:
> An intriguing proposition, with no end of possibilities. Leaving aside
> for the moment the fact that little discussion of Pynchon's Foreword (as
> opposed to Orwell's novel and the obligatory infighting) has heretofore
> taken place ... who would the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks be?

Think it might be a politic (if not politesse) to defer the later
question for the time being, since answering it would merely stir up
what we all should want to avoid, namely further inter-group
disputation.

A few ground rules might be observed. 

It may not be quite set in concrete into which of the two groups a given
p-lister logically falls, or which group he or she wishes to be in
regardless of strict logic. A certain amount of reasonable discretion
and leeway should be allowed, though obviously complete license in this
regard would totally defeat the purpose of the exercise. It would be
going too far for example to follow the rule in the American federal
government that one day each year permits each employee to declare which
of the recognized ethnic or minority groups he or she wishes to be
included in for purposes of affirmative action, tax allotment, etc.
(Oddly, full advantage of this provision was never taken, which I think
bodes well for a reasonable outcome with respect to our little exercise
here.) There is one rather important thing we must be very clear on and
unyielding about from the start. Under no circumstances should certain
pairs of p-listers be allowed to end up in the same group.

Eg.g


Myself and Doug

Dave Monroe and Rob

Terrance and Terrance

So away we go

P.

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On
> > Behalf Of Paul Mackin
> > Sent: 26 May 2003 16:10
> > To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> > Subject: Re: 98% Orwell Free
> > 
> > On Mon, 2003-05-26 at 10:52, David Morris wrote:
> > > --- Jonathan Hall <jmh69 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > > As an aside on the 'Foreword' discussion: I'm relieved Pynchon
> writes
> > very
> > > few essays; the 'Ellipse of Uncertainty' drawn by his novels is much
> > more
> > > becoming.
> > >
> > > This foreword discussion shows, I think, that Pynchon wants to
> maintain
> > that
> > > 'Ellipse of Uncertainty' even in his essays.  He doesn't want to be
> > nailed
> > > down.  But in this case he's not very entertaining nor thought
> > provoking.  It's
> > > one big "ho-hum" IMHO.
> > 
> > 
> > Yeah, I agree, but it still looks like at least another week is going
> to
> > be spent on "the introduction" as predictable and non-rewarding as
> this
> > is likely to be. The sad fact is, there is nothing much else to talk
> > about.
> > 
> > I'd like to suggest a possible way of livening things up little.
> > 
> > The mind numbing experience of last week was I think due to the fact
> > that the 9/11 people and the non-9/11 people don't seem to be speaking
> > the same language. It's like they were from different planets. (no
> fair
> > speculating on which are the Martians)
> > 
> > Anyway, since there obviously isn't going to be any further meeting of
> > the minds between the two main affinity groups, why not drop the
> > inter-group back and forth and concentrate for a week on intra-group
> > differences of opinion.  There are such differences. Though these
> might
> > not be very major, more details than anything else, still they might
> be
> > interesting to iron out.
> > 
> > So, how about this? During the experiment the 9/11 people would talk
> > only to other 9/11 people and the same would go for the non-9/11
> people.
> > 
> > What y'all think?
> > 
> > P.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>