Pynchon and fascism

[s~Z]

>>>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.<<<

How can you highlight the relations between statements without first having
an interpretation of what the statements mean? Seems to me interpretation
precedes shape designation, and the shape any given reader highlights is
dependent upon their interpretation of the meaning of the components
highlighted.