MDDM "Another Slave-Colony"

[Bandwraith at aol.com]

In a message dated 12/30/01 8:43:26 PM, jbor at bigpond.com writes:

[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?]

I think when the passage has been made safely to America that material
will be brought to light.
  
> 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,

jb:

[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.]

I will accept your observation that I am enjoying the characterization
of Mason more this go round, and that the Rev'd seems to have more
access to the thought's of M than D, but not your suggestion that I am
trying to "pin down an authorial perspective"- except maybe in the
negative sense. That is, I don't think Pynchon has strayed too far
from those earlier beliefs that metaphor is both a truth and a lie
depending on one's vantage, and that there's danger aplenty in taking
any "mapping" too literally. Mason, through Wicks if you wish, both
articulates this and falls victim to the temptation to do this more often 
than Dixon. He takes the lead as I guess is appropriate given their roles.

But I agree, parallax is seential for depth of field and meaning.  


> However, the final product has to feel right, and Mason's abstractions
> are easy targets for Dixon's intuitive rejoinders.

jb

[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.]
 
I think sincerity is a complicated word. Certainly as humans they are equal,
but we are given to believe that Mason has more at stake than Dixon.
It mat be that Wicks finds Mason more attractive from a clerical point
of view, that the fate of his soul is more in doubt, and so the reader gets
treated to a more generous elaboration of Mason's personality in the telling.
Of course Wicks might find Mason more physically attractive, as well, all
of which would have been sublimated in the portrayal of the shenanigans in
Cape Town.