Pynchon and fascism

[Paul Mackin]

Thanks for your reply. It must be obvious to everyone that neither of us
is trying to be obstinate or obfuscatory. As far as the details of your
argument is concerned I think I understood you well enough. What I added
was meant as clarification, but perhaps fairly important clarification
in a few cases. The stumbling block for me is the overall framework in
which you place the details of your argument. The "how P writes about
how we know what we know" business. For me its as if some theory of
Pynchonian explication is being applied that I've never been let in on.
(It might be compared to having a Freudian interpretation presented to
someone who had never heard of Freud) 

On Thu, 2003-05-29 at 02:43, Paul Nightingale wrote:
> > > 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. 
> > 
> > 

Until now I didn't appreciate that the differences between Italian,
German, and Spanish fascism were what you had in mind. But did either P
or O delve much into these differences?

> > 
> > 
> > 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 is a problem for me. I thought P was mainly writing about Orwell
and his mindset at the time of writing 1984. This doesn't mean P can't
introduce observations of his own about fascism as he understands it.
But why should we think such would be a major part of an introduction to
someone else's book. So, yes, you have a perfect right to emphasize
variations in P's use of the word "fascism." I just don't see its
relevance to the degree you do.


> 
> > >
> > > 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.

Again "the way he's doing it" eludes me. As I said above I just don't
get it.

> 
> 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?

Only unclear. I think you haven't explained sufficiently the theory of
what you are trying to do. As least not to me. Sorry. I'm not trying to
be dense.
> 
> 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.
> 

I'll have to give this some thought.

P