GW, hepcat

[Vaska]

So, on the one hand Pynchon writes: "If the Colonel serves not as a Focus of
Sobriety, neither is he quite the incompetent Fool depicted in the London
press."  Yet, on the other, he twists himself into a pretzel so that we may
see GW as precisely one such?  

Interesting.  

Vaska

Mascaro wrote:
>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.
>
>