MDDM "Another Slave-Colony"

[Bandwraith at aol.com]

in a message dated 12/23/01 6:20:05 AM, jbor at bigpond.com writes:

<< I disagree. The narrative which Wicks begins to recount, and which becomes
the bulk of the text of the novel, is a direct response to Pitt and Pliny's
admonitions at 7.22-27. It is ostensibly "a Tale about America". Mason and
Dixon are historical figures, and thus the 'Englishness' of their
biographies is unavoidable. However, Wicks is a fictional creation, and the
particular "Tale about America" he tells - the contours and limits of its
scope - is in fact a choice made by Pynchon. <<<

That's fine with me, as far as it goes, but there is the nagging question
originally asked by 'Brae and responded to by the Rev, re: the curious timing 
of
the drawing of the line, as if it were meant to temporally bisect the transits
of Venus, rather than merely serve to settle an eighty year earthly dispute.
It seems to me that there is the deliberate planting in the text of this
temptation to intuit more importance to this "coincidence" than merely
coincidence, as the Rev would have all believe. I, for one, see no reason
not to succumb. I bought the popcorn too. After all, Isn't this a meditation
on the drawing of lines, in general, between the subjective and the objective,
or fiction and whatever passes for the real thing, to name just two?

Are not all distinctions finally arbitrary? Given the entirety of this 
author's
works, one could imagine that M&D was planned- that the whole choice of
material beginning with V. was planned before any of them were written, 
so neatly does the line bisect the transits of V-ness. 'Brae is right to be 
suspicious, and so should we, although we'll probably never know for sure.

>>I could imagine a completely
different background story for a novel about Mason and Dixon's expedition,
one with the Penns and the Calverts setting the scene for the central
section, rather than what we've been given which has focused on, say, the
Vrooms and the Bradleys instead.<<

But the novel is Mason & Dixon, not-  Mason & Dixon's Expedition.

>>I think it's quite clear that the line about the selection of tales "for
their moral usefulness" (7.6) can't be taken at face value.<<

Well, if not a tale for moral usefulness, than for what usefulness? Even
delivering a "mortal body blow" to preconceived myths might be construed
as a morally worthwhile endeavor- unless it's the case that the tale has no
usefulness? What then would Ben Franklin think?

>>For a long time (from 1978 at least) it was known that Pynchon was writing a
book "about" the Mason-Dixon Line, which is just what it is. I'd say the
actual focuses of the novel when it appeared would have surprised many
readers even so.>>

Someone, an American I think, suggested that the author's choice of material
is something that we readers ought not quibble about. I feel the same way, but
I can't help being charmed by this particular author's choice of material. 
That's
part of the fun, isn't it? Being charmed? And despite Monroe's work ethic and 
Franklin's adjurations to the contrary, we do have some fun here in The 
States, 
even have time for a dream or two, between jobs.  

""It seems M&D are somewhat at odds here, so "the text" (whatever that might 
 mean) might be hard pressed 'to agree' with them both.""

>>They're certainly in agreement about America, however, aren't they? And the
text does empathise with both Mason's and Dixon's points of view, as I
noted, even though those points of view are often separate, and sometimes in
total opposition, and through the course of the narrative to come they will
develop. In fact, it is by virtue of this technique that a textual dialectic
is generated.<<

I'm not so sure they're in agreement as in 'accomodation.' Dixon, in 
particular, is
drawn as being very careful not to irritate Mason, who seems more sanguine and
closer to the surface, or, 'thin-skinned' despite Mason's attempt to 
characterize
Dixon as the "Larrk of the Sanguine." It is in these entirely fictional yet 
delicately
drawn vignettes that the fine hand of Pynchon is, for me, apparent- the Rev
become a mere glove, albeit, a silken one.

The dialectic you might be referring to could be seen as a complementarity, 
perhaps obviating the need to exclude any subjunctives caught in the middle,
except by design, as an example to highlight the essential arbitrariness 
inherent
in making any distinction whatsoever.

""I'm not sure where "The myth of a noble and glorious (and 'independent') 
American heritage" that you are referring to is coming from.""

>http://www.fuzzylu.com/falmouth/bates/america.html

""the last reference I recall was "the Nation bickering itself into 
Fragments, wounds bodily and ghostly, great and small, go aching on, not 
ev'ry one commemorated,- nor, 
too often, even recounted"(6.10)... not particularly auspicious.""

>>Indeed, and it is explicitly a narrative agency *outside* Wicks that makes
this observation.<<

Yes, and I'm not sure of it's credibility. The passage ends with: "For the 
Times 
are as impossible to calculate, this Advent, as the Distance to a Star." I 
wonder
if the distance, at least to the sun- and perhaps other stars- wasn't 
calculable
given the science and technology of 1786. Maybe our astronomer in residence,
Mark Adams, can clarify this?

""Ethics and motives of euro-imperialism not withstanding, Mason's primary 
reason
for acknowledging the harsh reality of power politics, it seems to me, is to 
contrast it with his hope for a "Moment of Purity" as the price for such an 
iffy and personal wish. He seems to be unconsciously replaying  past battles 
with his father."" 

>>I'd say he was seeking "the Purity of the Event" in order to assuage his
sense of loss and grief in the wake of Rebekah's death, and his paranoia
about covert manipulations of him by Bradley and other members of the R.S.,
and that he now recognises the "unreasonable weight of hope" he had placed
on the Transit. (247.21-25) I think he's kicking himself for his naivety and
has become even more glum and cynical than he was before he left for the
Cape. There's no reference to his father at this point that I can recall.<<

It's that great passage on the subjunctive, beginning 208.5, "Had he gone to
his father..." and ending, "this might have been the conversation likely to 
result."
Kind of sets the stage for Mason's reflexive need to brow beat himself for
being a "stragazer who won't grow up." Could substitute novelist for 
stargazer,
I guess, and really go out on a limb.