MDDM Chapter 44 "a haze of green Resurrection" (441.2)

[Terrance]

jbor wrote:
> 
> on 7/4/02 10:36 PM, Terrance at lycidas2 at earthlink.net wrote:
> 
> > We have a very different view of Christianity, I guess.
> 
> I'm not at all sure about this assumption, but we certainly seem to have
> different views about Christianity's influence on and in Pynchon's texts.

No doubt. 


> 
> I don't think "Dark Hepsie" is a Christian priestess at all. 

Agreed. 

I've only got
> _Bewitched_ episodes to go on, I admit, but I'm pretty certain that a bit of
> digging on her name (from Hepzibah, I'd guess) will elicit a connection with
> witchcraft and paganism rather than Christianity. She does not make any
> distinction between "Christ, Fate, Saint Peter and the god Neptune" at all
> (and she then starts talking about insurance!) and Dixon discerns her as a
> "Scryeress". (26.17) The term "scry" refers to the art of divination,
> especially by crystal-gazing.

Right. Crystal gazing, thus the circle back to this chapter. 


> 
> I don't dispute the fact that Mason, Dixon, Wicks, and probably all of the
> LeSpark clan are Christian, of various persuasions and to varying degrees.
> Historically-speaking, it would be highly improbable if they weren't. And
> the interplay between Mason's and Dixon's different backgrounds, including
> though not restricted to religion, is certainly highlighted in the text. One
> such moment is the conversation which begins Chapter 5. Mason declares that
> the attack at sea was "an act of Him so strange", meaning an act of God.
> Dixon replies that he doesn't know "which one" Mason means, and I take this
> to mean that Dixon doesn't know which particular *act* Mason is referring
> to. Mason misunderstands, thinking Dixon is uncertain about which *Him*,
> assuming that Dixon believes in more than one deity, or more specifically,
> in the active interference of the Devil in human affairs. Dixon immediately
> realises the assumption Mason is making about his faith and replies,
> facetiously, "all thah' Coal-mining, I guess". (42) 

OK to here, although we can disagree as to weather which one refers to a
deity or an act, so I deliberately left this one to ambiguities in my
previous. It doesn't make a difference to my reading of it either way.
By my reading there is one additional cross communication is all. I tend
to, unlike yourself I guess, not think tha the text favors or is more
sympathetic to Dixon or his POV. 



I don't think Dixon
> "looks for HIM in Mason" at all, or that the conversation indicates a
> Christian impulse driving Pynchon's text. 

Dixon says he looks for God in Mason. Bottom of page 38. 

I don't know about a Christian impulse driving Pynchon's text, this one
or any other I've read. This is the view of another P-lister, not mine. 





The exchange is played out for
> comic effect and the development of the protagonists' relationship, and
> foregrounds both Mason's condescension and Dixon's rapier wit, along with
> their respective socio-cultural and religious heritages.

Right. 


> 
> It is not at all correct to say that "Pynchon decides to include the Good
> Friday start date" for the marking of the Line. The fact that April 5, 1765,
> was Good Friday is not mentioned in the text of Pynchon's novel - not in Ch.
> 44, at least. This *is* significant. No reader could reasonably be expected
> to just *know* that this date was Good Friday, and what I find conspicuous
> is that none of the characters - all Christians, as we agree - mentions it
> either. Why isn't it mentioned? Why haven't *any* of the narrative agencies
> gotten some mileage out of this historical coincidence? It seems a very
> conspicuous *omission* to me.

Conspicuous absences, some argue, are very important to P's texts, but
what those conspicuous omissions mean or tell us about the author's
intentions remains a game of guess as far as I am concerned. If it's not
in the book, I can't guess what it might mean. Or I can, but I can't
expect others to see it even if I give them my crystal ball. 

> 
> Imo, there are no allusions to Christ on these pages either, and the "green
> Resurrection" metaphor is used in a pointedly non-Christian context, and
> used thus by a narrative voice which is not Wicks nor any other of the
> characters in the novel. (I can see no references to the 1794 Mutiny off
> Spithead or coal-miners' strikes here either.)

OK, I'll have to work on these a bit more. 




> 
> Finally, far from being "dismissive of religious superstitions" I think that
> Pynchon's texts are very inclusive of religious and other superstitions,
> including those superstitions upon which Christianity is founded. I don't
> believe any single set of religious superstitions assumes a privileged
> position in the texts, however. In other words, I see no evidence of a
> Christian ethos undergirding Pynchon's work.

I agree. 


> 
> Of course, I can see we are going to continue to disagree on this, so I
> won't press the point any further.
> 
> best