Chapter 5: Paranoia: Would history have been different?

[Terrance]

Paul Nightingale wrote:
> 
> 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."

I like it a lot. However, I don't quite understand this last sentence.  


> Again, we should consider the role played by paranoia, not whether or not
> this or that character is paranoid.

Why should we not consider whether the characters are paranoid? 


In addition to the many forms of paranoia generally present, characters
exhibit peculiar paranoid behavior that is indicative not simply of the
role of paranoia generally (miscommunication paranoia), but of something
specific to them as a character distinct from other characters. 


You also suggested (I think you asked, "Is Slothrop Paranoid?") that
Slothrop may not be paranoid. In my opinion Slothrop is paranoid (there
are several forms of Paranoia that are attributed directly to Slothrop
as a character), although some of these forms of paranoia overlap with
the role various forms of generalized paranoia play in the narrative.