MDDM Ch. 5: "an act of Him"

[Terrance]

jbor wrote:
> 
> My reading of the opening misunderstanding (42) between M & D in the chapter
> is that it is not over the word "Him", but the word "act". Mason says that
> it was "an act of Him so strange, His purposes unknown", meaning of course
> an act of "God", to which Dixon replies "I'm not sure which one tha mean",
> meaning he isn't sure which "act" Dixon is referring to (i.e. the order to
> sail, the attack, the retreat etc). If Dixon were referring to the "Him"
> then he wouldn't have used the pronoun "one" in his reply, surely? And, it
> fits in much better with Mason's wry rejoinder to Dixon's observation at
> chapter's close about lightning not striking twice.

Yes I follow your reading of it. 

> 
> Then, I think that when Mason realises Dixon's interjection is not a quibble
> over "Who" but rather *what*, he stops himself. ("-oh. Oh, I see.") I guess
> the "common Belief" Mason alludes to then, rightly or wrongly, is to Quakers
> accepting that any and all of God's acts are "strange" or "unknown" (setting
> up a false Reason v. Faith binary in the process), and that Dixon
> foregrounds the condescension of Mason's reply with what is becoming a
> characteristic mode of ironic self-deprecation in his quip about "All thah'
> Coal-Mining, I guess". Makes sense to me, anyway.


Yes, I follow this as well. And now it is clear to me. Moreover, the
insights you draw from this reading of it makes very good sense.   Thank
you. 

But, I'm not sure the explanation is completely correct. 

Just going to quibble with one little point that does not change my
opinion of your reading of the exchange. 

Even though Dixon's "I'm not sure which one tha mean" is to which "act"
and not which "Him", Mason is still confused here. Isn't he? So the use
of the pronoun "one"  confused Mason. It confused me as well.  

Mason's reply (and I assume the narrowing eyes are an indication that he
is confused) is, "*Who* else could--oh." He begins with *WHO*,  and so
it seems that Mason  did not understand that Dixon was referring to the
"acts", but rather to the possible agents ("who else"). 


> 
> What I see as especially impressive about this novel is that despite the
> antiquated linguistic overlay Pynchon has orchestrated (for Purposes
> Parodick), all those obscure historical details and minutiae, and the
> convoluted way Wicks goes about recounting the tale and consequent
> disruptions to narrative sequentiality therein, it is remarkably easy to
> follow and quite funny in the reading of it.

It's very funny. Compared with other Pynchon novels the story is easy to
follow, but I find it a difficult read nonetheless. It's the language,
the punctuation, the history, the convoluted narrative layers, the
subjunctives, all manner of difficulties.  

Thanks again, 

T