Chapter 5: Paranoia: Would history have been different?

[Paul Nightingale]

Yes. I think this is a key point. The narrative thereby casts doubt on the
importance of Mason/Dixon as 'agents of history'. Narrative history-writing
flourished during this period (late-C18th onwards): ideologically, it served
the interests of what we might call bourgeois progressivism (which is, of
course, central to the way the novel is evolving at this time). Pynchon
doesn't just tell a story; he comments on the way stories were told in the
(constructed) C18th. To go back to paranoia: as the narrative questions the
central role given to Mason/Dixon as protagonists, it also grants them the
possibility that they are central to the machinations of others, ie "some
faceless committee". Consider the wording of the key phrase: "Someday Mason
and Dixon may not dream as often of the Battle with the Frenchman, - but
this Letter they will go back to again and again, unable to release it."
Again, we should consider the role played by paranoia, not whether or not
this or that character is paranoid.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Badger" <lupine at ncia.net>
To: "Paul Nightingale" <paulngale at supanet.com>; <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 1:16 PM
Subject: RE: Chapter 5: Paranoia


> Paul Nightingale:
>
> > Perhaps we might start to
> > think of Cherrycoke as the ampersand who holds Mason and Dixon
> > together: he
> > quite literally constructs their relationship. Henceforth they are to be
a
> > trio.
>
> There are several instances in the book (at least three, I think) of the
> general phrase (paraphrasing here...)"Wherever two or more of you may
> gather, I will be among you"...Biblical, if memory of the last MDMD
serves..
>
> > "If ever they were to break up the Partnership, this
> > would've been the time." This opening also positions the reader, who
knows
> > full well that no such course of action was followed.
>
> Or could be followed, imho.  After the battle...after the exchange of
> letters with the RS...those that each might turn to have been *reduc'd*,
to
> only each other.  And what if they had broken up?  Would it have mattered?
> If it had been the Mason Line...or the Dixon Line...would history have
been
> different?
>
> Scott Badger
>