MDDM Ch. 72 Dixon and the slave driver

[Doug Millison]

jbor:
>No, we don't. There is discussion in the parlour between (at least) Wicks
>and Ives about Dixon's "family story" (695-6), but this is presented prior
>to the narration of the scene in the novel's text,

Not that I agree with you, but if what you say were the unambiguously the
case, all the more reason, then, to discount your interpretation of the
scene Pynchon has written to include stuff he chose not to write -- Dixon
whipping the slave-driver.


>So, no, I don't agree that it is apt or useful
>to think of Wicks "telling the story" here in any simplistic, Robin Williams
>monologue-type way

Do I see yet another edge of your elitist literary prejudices slipping out
from under that skirt?  First, it's jargon-laden interpretations by
literary theorists that are more valuable than other interpretations
(understandable, credentialed scholars do need to defend their turf, don't
they), now you seem to erect a  hierarchy of art forms -- postmodern
writers vs 19th century novelists and... oral storytellers "simplistic"?
Perhaps nobody managed to sufficiently enthrall you with a story when you
were a child? (Sad case, that.)
Or is it just Robin Williams you don't understand? Or have you really never
experienced the power and depth of a tale well told by an oral storyteller.


>I also think that an interpretive argument about the text which falls back
>on something like (paraphrasing) "it's only Wicks, so it doesn't count" is a
>cop-out.


Not an argument I've made, of course. (Paraphrasing would be the wrong word
choice here -- setting up and knocking down a straw man is more like it.)