Pynchon and fascism

[Paul Nightingale]

I was about to go back to the rest of your previous post, but I'll pick
it up here and hopefully not miss out anything.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On
> Behalf Of jbor
> Sent: 30 May 2003 09:21
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Subject: Re: Pynchon and fascism
> 
> on 30/5/03 4:55 PM, Paul Nightingale at isread at btopenworld.com wrote:
> 
> > I said the opening para of the Foreword juxtaposes 'Blair' to
'Orwell',
> > which raises the question of identity. Has my analysis (of the way
the
> > text works, or sets up oppositions) been followed by an
interpretation
> > of what it means?
> 
> I think you've framed your conclusion in terms of what Pynchon/the
text is
> "doing", rather than what the text "means", but I'd still argue that
this
> is
> an interpretive response to the text.
> 
I think, to go back to where I started, I wouldn't disagree if you said
I was being inflexible in my definitions of analysis/interpretation.
Perhaps they are Ideals that are never actually encountered in practice.
Perhaps what I've described is but one kind of interpretation, one that
accompanies a certain idea of what literature is: literature is great
writing, it requires a certain kind of specialised reading (however one
gets to be specialised as a reader, through training or personal
genius).

Perhaps another way of thinking of it is to consider what the act of
reading is supposed to achieve. By definition, if I explain what a text
means I am doing so on behalf of those who can't do it for themselves.
And because I'm an expert, and I work in a university, they might well
defer to my greater wisdom. OK - this is caricature, but I do think a
lot of criticism has always been designed to impose meaning on both text
and reader. Derrida uses the word mastery - we strive for mastery, as
though reading is a battle with the text. And if I manage to duff it up
and reduce it to its message, my ability to do so is what encourages
deference. Of course rival critics then become adversaries striving to
duff each other up.

The question then becomes, how do we read differently? If we're always
analysing and interpreting together, as part of the same process, what
does an approach that differs from the one I've caricatured above look
like?

Here I would say we offer open as opposed to closed readings. The closed
reading, as I describe it, is the one that seeks to master the text. In
response, the reader might (a) offer their own alternative closed
reading. You're wrong, I'm right. They might (b) simply defer to the
superior wisdom of the critical expert.

An open reading leaves gaps for the reader. I don't think this means
everyone chips in and contributes to a final, grand consensual version
of what it means. I would describe my reading of the Foreword as an
attempt at an open reading. I set out to explain how the text worked
(what I have called analysis). There is plenty of room for other readers
to explore it for themselves.

The fact that different readers might then disagree is no longer as
significant; they're no longer competing to provide a master reading.
For example, if we go back to what I said about P's use of
fascism/fascist, what should happen is that we explore the different
meanings that might attach to those terms. We're no longer attempting to
say P meant this, that or the other. We're saying, I think, I hope, this
is what he did, so what are the implications of the way he describes
power relations?

Now, when I say "the way he describes power relations" you might well
call that an interpretation of the text. I wouldn't argue, as I said
above.

However, secondly, I think this approach, addressing power relations,
does allow the reader to consider the now of the text, the reading
moment. Instead of saying the Foreword calls Bush a fascist (the
simplistic decoding of a message), the text asks us to consider the ways
in which power is exercised. I said before, in my overview, that the
longer the Foreword goes on, the more room there is for the reader to
speculate about this and that.

>From Foucault: "Power can only be exercised over free subjects."

>From the Foreword: "We know better than what they tell us, yet hope
otherwise" (xiii).

> Let me say that I don't think that in itself is problematic (it's not
so
> far
> from "deconstruction"), and I'm all for interpretations, particularly
> analytical interpretations; it's just the distinction between
"analysis"
> and
> "interpretation", as though the former is somehow more reliable or
> reputable
> than the latter, which I'm contesting.
> 
> I think this is perhaps the nub of the issue.
> 

You asked earlier if I meant that analysis was more objective. Most
definitely no! The reader is always implicated in the text. To me the
claim to objectivity means you can rise above it, godlike, unbiased etc.
As for reliable, I wouldn't use that term either if it carries the same
godlike/unbiased connotations as objective.

Thanks.