MDDM Ch. 72 Dixon and the slave driver

[Dave Monroe]

Okay, starting in on responses ...

--- s~Z <keithsz at concentric.net> wrote:
> >>>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.

This is an interesting argument here.  Just because
it's NOT printed on the page, doesn't mean it isn't
meant to be inferred.  Very good ...


> 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.

Agreed.  Slip on my part.  I believe I was more
cautious about this in my last post, though one COULD
of course nitpick semantically ad infintum here ...

> The text 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.

So far so good ...
 
> 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?

Well, it's likely to happen, taht's for sure.  So far,
still good ...

> 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. 

If even ...

> 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. 

"It's a good thing" ...

> Some of us, notably Dave and Doug say that there is
> something called 'what Pynchon wrote.' 

What Henry Holt et cie. printed, at any rate.  or
viking/Penguin.  Or J.P. Lippincott.  Or Bantam
Spectra.  Or Little, Brown.   Or ... no, I think we
all tend to agree on some variation of that statement
....

> Seems obvious enough. I guess if we were just
> objective enough we would just read 'what Doug and
> Dave wrote'

Doug and I write quite independently, by the way, not
quite like, say. "What Gilbert and George painted" or
"What Siegfried and Roy trained" ...

> pointing out 'what Pynchon wrote' and thank them
> for clearing everything up.

Ah, but of course, this has never been my argument
here.  MY argument.  Or Doug's.  But ...

> But, as 'Leonard Cohen wrote' it's all the
> continuous stutter of the Word being made into
> Flesh.

And thus far, still good.  Again, I was curious as to
what arguments might be put forth here, esp. given
past experience.  But I can't tell that WE'VE ("Dave
and Keith") disagreed on anything above, so far, so
...


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com