MDDM Ch. 72 Dixon's pistol?

[Terrance]

jbor wrote:
> 
> Judy wrote:
> 
> > If I may hazard an insight...I did come across evidence
> > which indicated that friends left home packing. And even
> > weighty Quakers were said to have threatened another human
> > with a firearm.
> 
> And have elected to serve in an active capacity during wartime.

And were some of the most brutal slave traders. And Quakers patrolled
the streets at night, like everyone else did,  with guns, to prevent
slaves from running away or simply running about at night. The Quakers
took small, halting, and **Gradual** steps toward ending slavery. They
did not all agree that it was against god, unjust, evil. 



The carrying of firearms was debated in Quaker meetings over and over,
as was slavery. 
First the hunting and shipping of humans, next the christianizing of
slaves, the buying of, then the selling of, (note that slaves were sold
at meeting and/or votes were taken to decide if a member should be given
financial support to buy, transport, sell, "care for" salves), the
freeing of slaves, and so on. 

Dixon doesn't approve of slavery. Many Quakers at the time did not,
others did.  So in the street Dixon is in real danger because people
knew that Quakers and others did not approve of slavery and that some
were actively working to put an end to the practice. But what Pynchon
does from the first few chapters of M&D is to play on the many
assumptions and ambiguities about Quakers and Dixon (not technically a
Quaker since he has been "Read Out"). He plays with the historical facts
and fictionalizes historical accounts. When I was reading M&D for the
first time I thought, how crazy of Pynchon to dress his Quaker surveyor
in a red coat.  It is in fact a fact that Dixon wore a red coat. The red
coat is discussed several times in the text and Dixon explains why he
wears it. But there is all manner of irony to be unraveled by the
reader. At times it seems as though Dixon, Mason, other characters or
actors are unaware of the "dramatic irony" that P has written into the
dialogue. At other times they seem to be playing at socratic irony (a
favorite round this list). But imagine Dixon standing in the street in
his red coat of military cut with his Quaker brim pushed back on his
head. A super hero. 
Sure. After all the drama, all the moralizing, Pynchon's Dixon is only a
ridiculous cartoon, his fist placed in the way of the oncoming Driver as
if he were able to stop a locomotive in its tracks. 



> Of course, the earlier incident in the novel doesn't indicate that Dixon
> "packs a pistol" at all. 

He carries a gun. Of course I may be chastised here for a bit of
hyperbole, but mine is no worse than your reading of the whipping that
never happened. I agree 100% with Dave Monroe's reading. It's not that
difficult. Problem is, we have discussed this passage so many times in
detail ad nauseam and never talked about it. Why is Doug insisting that
Dixon did not place his fist in the man's face? Good god, talk about
language games! This is the same guy that has the audacity to critique
Otto's English comprehension? 
Sorry Rob, but I'm a bit disappointed here again. It seems that Doug has
been digging this trench for 3 years now--Dixon & the Driver. And all
you can do is dig one too? So here we are in no man's land again.  





He and Mason argue about the "real" sounds outside
> the tent: Mason thinks it is "a Dog", Dixon "Indian Drums":
> 
>     Outside something is creeping by. "Hold!" Dixon seizing a Pistol and
>     diving out the tent-flap, into the rain with a smoothness Mason has
>     rarely observed. ... (493.33)

He's got a gun. Sorry, should not have said he packs a piece. But we are
onto the passage now so....if you are interested let me know. A


> 
> This incident indicates that Dixon is, potentially, a man of action, that he
> is brave, braver than Mason at least, and that he is willing to use a weapon
> to defend himself and his fellows. But it's not *his* pistol.

It's not his pistol. My point was not that Dixon walks  around with six
guns at his side, but that he does carry a gun that night (all sorts of
irony here too, Mason a failed leader, Dixon saying he will bite the
enemy and so on)  and this is not what a Quaker is supposed to do. But
again, while we read we like so many of the characters in the book,
including Mason, assume that Dixon will not do this or that because of
his religion and Dixon plays on these assumptions like a fiddle. So does
Pynchon. It's only if you seriously think that Pynchon has written a
Pilgrim's Progress of sorts that you would argue so vigorously against
the irony. 


> 
> At 698.12 Dixon's sarcastic response ("Rustick Joakery") is directed towards
> Mason's hyperbolic adoration ("To act for all those of us who have so
> fail'd." "All...?" Dixon begins.) after the stand Jere took against the
> slave-driver in the Baltimore Street. Dixon is joking wryly about being
> awarded or having to adopt different attire ("Shall I have ..."), imagining
> himself all dressed up as some maverick avenger (or, indeed, as a comic-book
> superhero: QuakerMan!), in a "Cloak" which will afford him "access to my
> Pistol". The Pistol here is part of the same totally imaginary, totally
> hypothetical, totally ridiculous outfit as the whole "U-niform".
> 
> The irony here, as I see it, is that Dixon, in his red coat and Quaker hat,
> does become a sort of semi-legendary or heroic figure by his intervention on
> behalf of the slaves in the street.

Tanks, Lots of irony here.