MDDM Ch. 72 Dixon and the slave driver

[Doug Millison]

At 4:02 PM -0400 8/23/02, Terrance wrote:
>And, imho, that Dixon does or doesn't whip the man is not a very
>significant question and if he did or did not whip the Driver doesn't
>really matter much to my reading of the book and Dixon's character.


I disagree, for the reasons I explained earlier. Dixon becomes an
altogether different character if Pynchon shows him killing a man, crosses
a Line, as it would, imo, if  Pynchon (or his narrator, as you like)
depicted Dixon lashing the slave-driver with the whip.  Pynchon appears to
take care to describe the Whip as a thing of evil, used by people who treat
other people as they treat garbage ("perishable goods") and nowhere in the
novel, imo, do we see Dixon treating people that way, even when he's at his
most cavalier, taking advantage of his status as a European to dally with
the native girls -- however Dixon treats them, I don't think it would be
fair to characterize what he does by comparing it to what a monger of
perishable goods does, as Pynchon appears to characterize  the slave-driver.


>
>He doesn't seem to know is part. He and Mason are constantly discussing
>their place in the System of Slavery and the SYSTEM that includes
>slavery and they are unsure of their role in it.


Unsure -- but they suspect they are a part of the System, they talk about
it, that means they "know" something about it, even if they aren't sure
exactly what role (part -- paraphrasing, Otto) they play.


>Dixon is a violent man. He is manic in all his emotions, including
>anger.

Anger doesn't have to be expressed with physical violence (although verbal
and emotion violence is harmful, too, comparable to physical violence in
some situations).
Isn't that what they teach perpetrators of domestic violence?

I like Joanne's interpretation here -- a nice exit from this closed loop
hothouse discussion right about now, thanks for humouring us...

Joanne:
> This is my favorite episode from the book, by the way.  (next favorite
> is the worm) The idea of Dixon, in his red coat, being a violent man is
> very interesting.  He certainly is manic.  I'm reminded of
> Dante/Aquinas' hot sins and cold sins (cold ones being worse and
> punished lower down in heck).  Mason has the black, melancholy humor and
> Dixon is choleric, but not in the classic "humourous" sense.  And yet
> Dixon consciously allies himself (sort of) with the peaceful Quakers.
> He certainly separates himself from the "middle way" of the Anglicans.

Both/and, to a degree, as Dixon and Mason sometimes seem to switch places,
but their humours remain relatively constant throughout.



Doug Millison
http://dougday.blogspot.com/
http://pynchonoid.blogspot.com/
http://www.Online-Journalist.com