Pynchon and fascism

[Paul Nightingale]

Malignd wrote:


> 
> I'm afraid I don't see the injustice I'm doing you.
> 

Well, this is starting to resemble another dispute I foolishly got
involved in. So I'll make a final statement and leave it. You're welcome
to the last word.

You twice edited what I wrote and effectively destroyed the argument;
after you finished, it didn't make sense to me, so I'm not surprised if
it makes no sense to anyone else.

You then replace two sections as follows:

> You did also write:
> 
> << P has been dealing with the fictions of history
> writing -- "stencilised history", pastiche, the
> unreliable narrator -- since his first stories, and
> this is how I approach the Foreword. >>
> 
> And:
> 
> << Which doesn't mean P has written [the foreword] as
> one of his short stories...>>
> 
> Is it these clarifications you think I've ignored,
> perhaps intentionally?  Or maybe just misunderstood?
> 

To be honest I've no idea what your thinking has been. What I do know
for a fact is that you have failed to put the two quotations above in
the right order. What is this, some kind of neo-dadaism? And there are
still important omissions.


> I read:  although the foreword is not similar to his
> other fiction, you'll nevertheless treat it as fiction
> because, in his other fiction, his stories and novels,
> Pynchon has dealt with what you describe as the
> fictions of history writing.  (Therefore the foreword
> is history writing as fiction?)
> 

I prefer my version, but I would say that, wouldn't I? The importance of
"not similar" in the first sentence is seriously undermined by
"nevertheless": you won't find anything comparable in what I wrote. The
Foreword is an example of P dealing with the fictions of history
writing. That does not mean, in your version, the Foreword is history
writing as fiction.


> Undoubtedly I'm committing more distortions, but an
> approach that questions the differences in the writing
> of fact and fiction and proceeds mainly by redefining
> or blurring those terms--you're going to have to
> expect some people to find it less than persuasive.
> 

Ah yes - it's my fault!

I don't mind that you don't find it persuasive; this is not about a
difference of opinion. If you wish to challenge my assessment of P's
writing, that's what we're here for. The problem is, you rubbished what
I wrote (I think unfairly) and offered nothing constructive by way of
response.

> <<But how do I know this is fascism? If I know
> anything, it's that I'd rather not be there.>>
> 
> I know as well that something is being done to me
> against my will, that my will is being coerced by
> physical force; I may know as well that those doing
> the coercing have done so to others, to my father or
> brother, perhaps, that they apparently operate from
> some sort of sanction as these actions are repeated
> without reprisal.  In short, I can cobble together out
> of no more than personal experience a pretty fair
> notion of the power structure to which I'm subjected
> and conceptualize it fairly accurately for what it is.
> 
> 
> But perhaps that's just creating a "text"?
> 
You tell me. You acknowledge that the feelings that follow from being
tortured don't happen in a social vacuum. Coercion implies some
knowledge of (basic human or legal) rights, even if one might reasonably
expect the body, of its own accord, to resist such punishment.
Sanction/reprisals (ie the possibility of laws against what they're
doing) has to be something you've been taught. Ditto the power
structure. Hence, the way you make sense of pain, on this occasion, is
inseparable from your knowledge of the kind of society you live in, and
whether or not you think justice is possible.