MDDM "Another Slave-Colony"

[jbor]

Bandwraith at aol.com wrote:

snip
> 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.

Wasn't Mason the one who threatened to "kill" Wicks at Cape Town? (84)

I'm still inclined to the view that it's Mason's self-absorption and
perception of his own pre-eminence in the partnership rather than greater
depth or degree of characterisation which is at work here, and that it's he
who presumes that he has more at stake, that what's happening to him is the
rightful focus of all attention, that all the perplexities and intrigue
revolve around his personal past and present circumstances and
relationships. He is paranoid, solipsistic, backward-looking, introspective
- and deliberately characterised as such - where Dixon is more self-assured,
sensible, wryly observant. And, I think, more sensitive and caring towards
Chas (because of these traits) than Chas to he.

The other idea I'd float is that it's because there's a lot more information
on Mason's life, and particularly the first-hand stuff from him in the
journal which would reveal aspects of his personality and emotional
development to a researcher, that Pynchon felt justified in articulating his
character so that he seems to grow through the course of the narrative,
whereas Dixon tends to remain a more static creation (apart from the
set-piece later on with the slave-owner) due to the "shadowy" nature of the
available biographical data on him.

I'm intrigued by your perceptions about *Wicks* being gay, however, (let
alone Tenebrae flashing "beaver shots" at her uncle!) Surely you're joking?
It seems to me that this novel, and even _Vineland_ for that matter, are
much more coy in terms of characters' sexuality and carnal relations than,
well, _GR_ at least. Or perhaps it's just that there's a helluva lot more
explicit sex scenes in _GR_ than in the other works?

best