Pynchon and fascism

[Paul Nightingale]

Malignd wrote:
> 
> <<... I haven't written what you try (a tad clumsily,
> I might add) to say I did write.>>
> 
> I wrote:
> 
> <<... it's difficult for me to see any way in which
> clarity is gained by treating the Foreword as
> fiction.>>
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> <<Part of this approach is that one questions the
> distinctions usually drawn between different kinds or
> genres of writing. Most obviously fact/fiction: I
> treat the Foreword as fiction.>>
> 
> Sorry if that's a tad clumsy for you, Paul, but I
> don't see where you've been misrepresented.  I don't
> see on what basis you choose to treat the Foreword as
> fiction and I don't see what's clarified by doing so.
> 

For the second time you've chosen to ignore the way I elaborate on my
use of 'fiction' here. There is a very clear statement of what,
specifically, I don't mean by fiction in this context; you have failed
to acknowledge that. Hence the misrepresentation. It might have been
clumsy the first time: I'll let you decide how it might be described
this time round.

For the record, I might have added that fiction here means
writing-as-a-construct, which is what was being discussed previously, ie
the way P writes about fascism etc. But you must be aware of that
particular theoretical approach, since you're clearly familiar with the
school of thought you dismiss so cogently below ...

> <<Other than the "all history is fiction" argument,
> which is tedious and unrewarding, I can't see any
> basis this approach.>>
> 
> <<Again a distortion of what I wrote. I'm not sure I
> see a basis in your approach.>>
> 
> I'm not distorting what you wrote, I'm suggesting a
> possible basis for your approach, for choosing to
> treat the Foreword as fiction.  Other than what I'm
> offering, I see no basis.  Perhaps you could offer
> one.
> 

The fact remains that your statement does not correspond in any
meaningful way to what I wrote. Your dismissal of what you've decided is
"tedious and unrewarding" rests, perhaps conveniently, on your
distortion of my earlier paragraph.

Perhaps I could offer what? Engage with my argument, what I've actually
written, and then I might know what I'm supposed to do next.

> << Really.  I think there are any number of
> illiterates who might give a fair description of
> fascism who "know" fascism in rather more direct
> ways.>>
> 
> <<Again a one-dimensional put-down that rests on your
> refusal to read and comment on what I've written.>>
> 
> You wrote: <<... the only way in which we can know
> fascism is through what's written about it, the way
> it's represented ...  >>
> 
> Perhaps your "we" is more exclusionary than I
> presumed.  I do think, however, it's possible to know
> fascism more directly.  As a victim of it, for
> instance.
> 

I've already responded to this point in an earlier post. I see no need
to repeat myself.