Pynchon and fascism

[Paul Nightingale]

> > Paul Mackin wrote:
> >
> > "Did Orwell believe that political parties of the democracies were
as
> > fascistically minded in their way as Germany, Italy, and Spain?
Pynchon
> > seems to think Orwell was not far from such a position. Perhaps
Pynchon
> > is not far from agreeing with him. He doesn't really say but if he
does
> > agree is he correct in doing so?"
> >
> > I think the danger is, the questions above presuppose that we know
what
> > fascism is. Perhaps we do, and perhaps we'll know it when we see it.
> > Once again, I think it more productive, when discussing the
Foreword, to
> > consider how P writes about how we know what we (think we) know.
> 
> I fall off the wagon immediately  with your first sentence. Some
> political scientist many years ago first invented the word fascist to
> refer to something taking place in Italy (I guess). From there it just
> took off. Fascism like every word has no fixed and stable "meaning."
> Of course like Voltaire said, one could define one's terms. Force
> establish a meaning. Therefore, it's not a question of "knowing" what
> fascism is, but deciding what it is.

Which I rather think is my point, and why we should address the way P
has written, rather than taking such issues out of context. There were
important differences in the Italian, German, Spanish varieties of
fascism, although I guess if you're being tortured it doesn't really
matter who's doing it. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pynchon might have the best of intentions but each time he uses the
term
> in a non-defined way he's running the danger of being part of the
> problem and not the solution. That's assuming it IS a problem.
> 
I don't see the "problem" if we're concentrating on P's writing. Your
questions ("Did O believe ... ?" and "Is P correct in agreeing with
him?") effectively ignore the way P has written about fascism here. A
lot of conventional litcrit is based on discussing what a writer has
meant by a particular word, the different meanings that attend its usage
in different passages etc. So nothing terribly radical or off-the-wall
in my suggestion, I think, if I adopt that approach to P's use of
fascism/fascist. Your questions might be worth asking, but they are
questions of interpretation; what I'm trying to do is discuss ways of
analysing the text, to my mind an important distinction.

> >
> > This isn't an abstract exercise (although I've no doubt some will
see it
> > as that and no more). Political rhetoric is heavily dependent on the
> > labelling of one's enemies. Such labelling only works if and when we
> > don't think about it.
> 
> Yes, throwing loosely defined terms at your opponents IS a problem  We
> shouldn't do it. I agree.
> 
And apropos of nothing here, another phrase perhaps of interest:
'premature antifascist', coined by the FBI (I think, or HUAC) when
investigating leftists in the mid-40s - always one of my favourites, a
delightful way of making the word mean something else.

> >
> > Anyway, the references:
> >
I see nothing to disagree with here in your annotations, what you say
about O, the Labour Party etc. Your parallel text is designed, I think,
correct me if I'm wrong, to drag my text back towards the qus you raised
at the outset.

Hence:

What you write does serve to set up your final comment ...

> 
> >
> > In the first two refs, P discusses the pursuit of power; in the
latter
> > two refs, the way power might be exercised. In the latter refs we
can
> > distinguish between the individual whose mindset is always 'fascist'
as
> > opposed to anything else (assuming such a person exists) and the
fascist
> > gesture or act that an individual (or govt) might choose (or which
might
> > be the result of their actions). Hence the discussion has moved from
> > political activism per se to the relationship between govt and
> > electorate.
> >
>  It's safer to say P is discussing O's perceptions. Whether P agrees
> fully or partially is at least in some doubt.

Why is it safer to say what P is doing, or what you think he's doing,
than to discuss the way he's doing it? Again, interpretation vs
analysis. The former separates meaning from the text, and does so
unproblematically (as I see it, my working definition). The latter deals
with the text.

However, I agree that P is discussing O's perceptions. The passage, as P
himself writes, is about O's intentions. What I don't understand is how
that negates what I've written here. O's intentions are the starting
point: I've then tried to draw conclusions about the way in which P goes
about writing O's intentions. Is there anything 'incorrect' in what I've
written?

One further point here. The shift I have identified from activism to the
govt's relations with the electorate does lead into P's subsequent
discussion of the role of the media. Hence, my version describes the way
he has organised the Foreword, the way it's structured.