Meshugginah posts, and other things sundry

calbert at pop.tiac.net calbert at pop.tiac.net
Sun Jul 6 07:47:18 CDT 1997


Funny how a little word can generate so much chaff. Interpretations 
as projections of self and anon, excuse me if I fail to see the 
relevance. So much IQ expended in ad hominem and mulieres
commentary, so little thought.
 Consider the following, the Gershom- 
Washington relationship as  another example of the TRP high/low  
game. Throughout  the passage there seems to be an effort to 
characterize Washington as something less than the man of the world 
he would perceive himself to be. In fact, there is reason to 
believe that he is a good deal less cosmopolitan than his putative 
servant. For example, Gershom is described as having a career in 
"showbiz" (G is also described as a Canaanite, I'll leave it to more 
qualified voices to elaborate on the Canaanite/Jewish connection, 
would this make him a colonial Sammy Davis Jr.?) that has afforded 
him the opportunity to travel the colonies and amass a wealth 
comparable to that of his master. He does not appear too servile, and 
has no qualms about questioning his "masters" investment suggestions 
in a quite "cheeky" manner - IN FRONT OF GW'S GUESTS.
When attributing the invention of the punch they are drinking W. 
tells his guests that it was the work of "my Man Gershom". Though 
this could be read very literally, what if we contracted the phrase 
to "m' man G.", mimicking current street vernacular? By so doing we 
can see W as a hep pretender, a type with which I am sure we are all 
familiar. In this vein it would be very reasonable to expect that his 
use of "meshugginah" is in the same spirit. It is the WASP trying to 
sound cool by appropriating the terminology of what his group might 
consider a lower, yet infinitely fascinating order, and doing so 
incorrectly. Such an interpretation does not leave us debating to 
what degree TRP pooched in his use of Yiddish. Why would a writer 
with his reputation for accuracy not be able to find the correct form 
of a relatively commonly used term? I hate to generalize, but are we 
to believe that the drafts to M&D had never been read by anyone 
jewish - in the world of New York publishing? To ascribe this to 
error would be a considerable undertaking; to view it shorn of 
personal projections and biases as a simple literary technique is not 
only feasible, but to this intellectual plankton, the most reasonable 
course.
This interpretation suffers only two major drawbacks, 
a) it deprives Jules (sorry buddy, but I think you are on the wrong 
track with this) of a cudgel with which to pummel trp for a lack of 
sensitivity (don't give up, there will surely be other opportunities)
b) it robs Vaska, whose pronouncements on this has set new standards 
for "self-embossed bombast", of the altitudinous perch from which she 
has chosen to defecate on the Man.
My profound thanks to those who have patiently waded through my 
inelegant prose to get to this point.
love,
cfa



More information about the Pynchon-l mailing list