GW, hepcat

[MASCARO at humnet.ucla.edu]

I waded through your not-so-inelegant prose to find that I agree w/ your
 GW riff. I stated this as one of the options (though I didn't
 develop it w/ the verve you do) in my first reply to Siegel's
 *ignorant error* slam.  Folks didn't seem to give the possibility
 (i.e. that it's GW's slip) much credence, but after your quik take,
 I'd say it was a likely reading.


john (obviously not reading his posts in chronological order) m
****************************
from cfa (quoting for clarity--there's a lot of noise out here t'day)
<snip>

> 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.