Pynchon and fascism

[jbor]

>> I'd add that the distinction between "analysis" and "interpretation" which
>> you're offering doesn't sit at all well with the all-text-is-narrativised
>> proposition.

on 30/5/03 9:51 AM, Terrance wrote:

> Why not?

Because both "analysis" and "interpretation" are textual responses (as well
as being responses to texts), and so both are "narrative" or "narrativised",
in the way that Paul N. has set forth this idea.

Pynchon's Foreword analyses _1984_ and provides (an) interpretation/s of it
(amongst other things). Orwell's novel itself analyses (reads) aspects of
history and his society, and an interpretation of these things is implicit
in what he wrote (represented) in the novel. In approaching text as text in
this way, the divide between fiction and non-fiction does blur, and the
artifice in, and artificiality of, that distinction is revealed.

I agree 100% with Paul's comments about the impossibility of "pre-textual
representation". I guess my only demur is that "analysis" isn't immune; it
isn't pre-textual, or purely descriptive or "objective" either. But, like
s~Z, I'm finding a lot which is thought-provoking, and which resonates with
my reading of Pynchon's work, and of text in general, in Paul's posts.

best