MDDM "Another Slave-Colony"

[Bandwraith at aol.com]

In a message dated 12/29/01 6:12:29 PM, jbor at bigpond.com writes:

<< Bandwraith:

> snip

> Pynchon's M and D are almost total fabrications of his
> creativity. As little is known about the historical M and D now as before
> the novel, except a few tidbits. They have been created almost out of
> whole cloth.

> And I think it is what Pynchon relishes most. M and D are almost blank 
slates
> upon which he can practice his art- the further examination of the
> metaphorical
> process, on all scales, or levels, if you prefer.

jb-

"I'd say that quite a bit of biographical research has informed the
characterisations of M & D. I think that it's in the portrayals of Wicks and
the family where Pynchon's creative imagination has had freer rein.
Ironically, there is greater recourse to literary "realism" in the
Philadelphia sections than in those which focus on M & D."

I would say, again, it is a matter of scale. The amount of time and
effort (love?) devoted to the minute and nuanced interaction between
M 'n D is remarkable. Certainly there is no historical record for any
of it, although Monroe has unearthed many interesting sources for the 
starting point, at least, of speculations that have perhaps gained
some cloak of verisimilitude with the passage of time. 

> Mason's preliminary idea of
> America: "The Place is but a Patch of England..." seems telling.

jb-

"I can see that you want to equate Pynchon with Mason, and why, though for
mine it's Dixon who has prevailed in most of the verbal stoushes between the
two to this point. (I think that we need to wait until the final section,
and the gradual development of Mason's insight, to see a closer alignment
between this character and his creator.)" 

That's fascinating. I wasn't aware that I was trying for that equation, let
alone "why". Dixon has always been my man, as well, but now that I think on
it, it is clear that the audience is given an office- even a corner one- in
Mason's mind, whereas Dixon is very much a surfacy type, whose interior,
as it were, must be inferred. But I find your comments even more
surprising given that just recently I was acknowledging to myself that
both of these characteriztions have sprung from a single mind, Pynchon's,
who must've gone to great lengths to keep them separate- in all the
fine details- of their exquisitely delineated interactions.

So, I would tentatively agree with you that in his depiction of Mason it
is easier to analogize with the process of, or at least the anticipatory
speculations invovled in- charting unknown territory, i.e., novel writing. 
However, the final product has to feel right, and Mason's abstractions
are easy targets for Dixon's intuitive rejoinders. 

jb-

"I've been more sympathetic to Dixon
so far, and I think one of the themes propelling the narrative has been the
way the country surveyor is usually more level-headed, sensible and
intuitive than the apparently better-credentialled city Academician.

"Jere corrects Chas again at this point I think, and Mason appears to retract
his initial statement, accepting Dixon's observation that "Americans" are no
more "British" than "the Cape Dutch are Dutch". This latter truth is
something which Dixon (and the reader) realised during the sojourn at the
Cape, and which Mason, too self-involved, largely missed."


Bringing them both to text without quite achieving certainty, i.e., allowing
some latitude for integration of the indefinite into the portrayal seems 
to me to be one of the techniques Pynchon is employing to ensare the 
reader and the reader's need for "reality", but for practical reasons 
the inside of Mason's head seems to be where we're stuck most often. 
I admit to feeling more comfortable there this time around. I imagine
the p.o.v. from inside Dixon's bean might be like hiding in a piano.