Pynchon and fascism

[Paul Nightingale]

jbor wrote:
> 
> I think that
> "how the text works" is a matter of interpretation as much as "what
the
> text
> means".

Perhaps. I've already said that my working definition of interpretation
focused on the decoding, the way in which meaning is assigned in such a
way as to separate meaning from text.

> For example, mentioning Orwell's real name works as a standard
> biographical opening.

I said earlier that it might well be word-for-word Googled. However, the
way the text organises this standard opening becomes significant in the
context of the Foreword as a whole, as just one of many oppositions. You
yourself say below that any passage has to be considered as part of the
whole. I would agree.

> I think that a reader or critic can present a
> "closed"
> version of "how the text works" as easily as another presents a
"closed"
> version of "what the text means". It goes back to my initial assertion
> that
> the two things, analysis and interpretation, the "how" and the "what"
of
> the
> text, aren't really separable, that they are part of a process.
> 

However, this denies my working definition of analysis, that it should
preclude the possibility of a closed reading; the latter is defined as
the imposition of meaning in such a way that the only response is
another closed meaning (hence readers as adversaries).

> I'll copy below what you wrote about Pynchon's use of the word
"fascism"
> in
> the Foreword.

You might or might not be aware of the sequence of posts it comes from.
I was dealing solely, briefly, as an exercise in reading, with the four
uses of fascist/fascism in that passage. I never claimed to provide an
exhaustive reading. Hence the "significant omissions" -- much of what
you write next elaborates on my outline and I find nothing to disagree
with there. I'll delete a lot of it to try to keep the length of this
post down.

> I think there's an awful lot of "what" going on in your
> commentary - interpretation of what the text "means" - and some
> significant
> omissions in regard to the "how" - analysis of how the text "works".
Above
> and beyond just tracking the mentions of the term "fascism" you can't,
if
> you're looking at "how the text works", you can't just ignore the way
this
> term has been juxtaposed with other terms and phrases and
descriptions.
> 

Your detailed description follows; as I've said, I don't dispute any of
the points you make, so far as it goes ...

However, does what you write function as analysis, as an account of how
the passage works? You summarise the passage and describe a series of
narrative points (or moments, perhaps). Nowhere do you account for the
shape of the passage: which is not, I think, to interpret, ie to say
what it means, but a way of highlighting (as Foucault would have it) the
relations between statements.

> In itself it is functioning as part of the whole text, and
> can't really be divorced from the rest and dissected - analysed - on
its
> own. But what is clear is that there is cohesion from one paragraph to
the
> next, that more oblique references are reiterated and spelt out more
> precisely in what follows.

Yes. Even though, above, you do take the "standard biographical opening"
out of the context I find significant.

> I don't come to anything like the same
> conclusions that you do in your final paragraph below, and to me what
> you've
> written there seems to be almost entirely "interpretation", as you
> describe
> it, rather than "analysis".

So where do I impose meaning on the text? I summarise the way the
narrative is organised. Is that an imposition of meaning? Do I separate
meaning from text? I think not, given that I focus clearly on how the
text has made use of fascism/fascist, how the term functions as a
signifier.

> In my reading, the relationship between the
> govt
> and the electorate is brought up in the references to the "working
> classes"
> or "masses" being "sold out" on p. ix, and that Orwell's political
> activism
> is still foregrounded on pp. x-xi ("perpetual dissident ... his
letters
> and
> articles ... particularly annoyed with the widespread allegiance to
> Stalinism" &c), and that the "shift" you detect isn't really borne out
by
> what's presented in the text.
> 

As I said before I was simply addressing the four references to fascism
(ix-x).

> > There is plenty of room for other readers
> > to explore it for themselves.
> 
> But, it seems, only within the framework which you have proposed for
"how
> the text works", which I view as a type of Leavisitism in disguise.

You seem to view the framework as a kind of strait-jacket. I prefer to
think of it as a model. One can offer alternatives.

> I
> prefer
> to allow readers room to explore for themselves both "how the text
works"
> and "what the text means". In fact, I don't see how you can prescribe
the
> one and then claim that the reader has any real freedom to do the
other.

I don't prescribe anything. Insofar as I offer a starting-point for
discussion, then clearly one could see that as an attempt to dictate the
way the discussion proceeds. But then, if you write anything, anyone
responding will have to start there. I think the question is, how far
the framework I offer limits the range of responses possible.

Below is the conclusion you have called interpretative:

> >
> > In the first two refs, P discusses the pursuit of power; in the
latter
> > two refs, the way power might be exercised.

This summarises the way the text-as-narrative proceeds. I haven't
offered an interpretation if, by that, is meant a statement of what the
text means.

> > 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.

Again, what the text does, how it is organised, part of my working
definition of analysis. I think we use the terms differently, although I
agree the separation is problematic (as I said before, it might best be
described as Ideal).

Anyway, thanks for the quality of the exchange here.