MDDM "Another Slave-Colony"

[jbor]

Bandwraith at aol.com wrote:

> 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.

While I do take your point, I think there's minutiae and nuance in the
Philadelphia scenes too, and I'd imagine the time and effort involved in
envisaging and constructing this quite intricate overarching *literary*
framework, from "whole cloth" as it were, for the central narrative, might
have been as great as that taken to extrapolate from the primary and
secondary source materials which do recount M & D's exploits. Despite the
apparent minimalism the drawing room cameos and the dynamics of the family's
interactions are quite exquisite and lovingly-detailed .... I'm wondering
now whether anyone has sought out corresponding historical source material
for that side of things?
  
> 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,

> snip

I'll take your word for this, but I have been getting an impression that you
would like to identify Pynchon with Mason (the father-son thing, the "patch
of England" quote, and the "office ... in Mason's mind" observation here) in
order to pin down an authorial perspective within the text. I'm inclined to
the view that authorial empathy extends far beyond any one character, or
narrative voice for that matter. (That notion of dialectic, which I know
you're not keen on .... ) Let's not forget Wicks, either. His "affection"
for Chas is foregrounded from the get-go .... And Rebekah, and her ghost,
have taken the narrative reins on a couple of occasions too.

> 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.

I'd see them as presumptions as much as they are abstractions, and which
Dixon is always quick to give the lie to. I think Dixon is more
good-humoured than old "Mopery", and that he has been the more sincere of
the two in his friendship and solicitations for his partner thus far.
 
> 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'm not actually sure whether "we" are or Wicks is, as there are moments
when the representation of Chas is distinctly in the third person (eg.
186.12). This time around I noted some messiness in the chapters recounting
Chas's time back at Stroud, a confusion at 192.34 about what year the
tale-telling is actually set in, and a particularly sloppy sentence
attempting to justify narrative agency at 187.30, for example, and while the
overall jumbledness of these few chapters might be intended as an indication
of Mason's regret and melancholia or Wicks's idiosyncratic "embellishments",
I could as easily conclude that Pynchon's editing process had become less
scrupulous here, heretical as that conclusion might be, due, perhaps, to
relative disinterest.

best