MDDM Ch. 72 Dixon and the slave driver

[s~Z]

>>>it's what the text actually says<<<

>>>Dixon doesn't whip the Driver.<<<

The text doesn't say this. A case can be made that the scene goes on with no
whipping, but the text itself does not say Dixon does not whip the driver.
If TRP were to tell us that in his imagination about the scene, a lash or
two were thrown, it would not contradict one word of the text.

>>>Again, he threatens to whip the Driver, but, as far as
the text goes, he never actually goes through with it.
 Not on the page, not in Pynchon's novel.<<<

This is almost true. 'The text does not describe him going through with it'
would be more accurate. The ext does not state that he never actually goes
through with it.

Just like the text does say the Driver complains of a broken tooth and
blames Dixon for it.

It does not say Dixon did or did not break the Tooth. The words do not state
what broke the tooth, nor if the tooth was actually broken.

But, TRP is organizing words on the page to portray an event, no? (Actually
maybe not....) The specifics of the event, since there are word-gaps in the
narrative, beg for interaction with the imagination of the reader, don't
they? The question as to why TRP writes things ambiguously, especially
things for which there are 'historical' records, is a good one, but one only
he can answer. The results are empirical here on the list. It leaves room
for much disagreement, creates discussions about the nature of reality, the
nature of art, the nature of language and communication, etc etc. Some of
us, notably Dave and Doug say that there is something called 'what Pynchon
wrote.' Seems obvious enough. I guess if we were just objective enough we
would just read 'what Doug and Dave wrote' pointing out 'what Pynchon wrote'
and thank them for clearing everything up. But, as 'Leonard Cohen wrote'
it's all the continuous stutter of the Word being made into Flesh.