MDDM Ch. 73

[Terrance Flaherty]

Doug Millison wrote:
> 
> This sort of reading tends to attenuate the meaning of
> "slave" to the point that it's not much of a
> distincton.  Sure, Mason and Dixon are "slaves" to all
> sorts of thing, M to his melancholy, Dixon to his
> appetites (there are 12-step programs for those and a
> million other enslavements, "addictions" they call
> them nowadays), etc.



But the text asks us to consider all human relationships and endeavors
as forms of slavery. Who is a slave? What Constitutes slavery? Does work
or labor? Does marriage? Does government? Does war? Does civilization?
These are old questions and they were big ones during the age of reason.
No need for the quotation marks here.  What's needed, for me anyway, so
that we don't attenuate the meaning of the word,  is a little
philosophy. Aristotle will help me. 

In M&D we have a lot of characters. Let's say that each character has
his/her own perspective on Slavery.  Austra has her perspective on
marriage as a form of slavery and Mason has his. They don't seem to
agree. She thinks that English marriage is slavery for woman. Not an
original idea, in fact she tells Mason that she has learned this from
other women. Now,  her perspective on slavery constitutes her own
perspective and the perspective of some English women, AND does so in a
way that is valid for all perspectives on slavery. That's the kicker! 

Mason's perspective on marriage is his. He doesn't' think Marriage is
slavery. His perspective is a man's perspective and the perspective of
some or most English men. 

English men, had rights that English women did not. 

Mason's perspective is his and the perspective of most English men at
the time and in no way does it invalidate Austra's perspective and/or
the perspective of some english women. 

Now, this way of looking at things does not lead to an infinite number
of perspectives or an infinite multiplicity of personal views of
slavery. We don't get a relativistic view of slavery in M&D. 

Nor does it get stuck in the bind of objectivity and emotion, that is, a
scientific or other fact based definition of slavery and one based on
non-cognative factors, like feelings. Mason and Dixon are often stuck in
this bind. Mason being more scientific at times and Dixon being more
emotional.  

Nor does it lead to a hierarchy of perspectives of slavery culminating
in one absolute perspective on slavery. This is the kind of hierarchy of
perspectives we get in M&D from, for example,  the religious people in
the book. For example, on the Line: it Begins or/and Ends  with GOD, his
division of things either from the creation and/or at the End of his
creation. 

Every occupation has its own perspective. To an astronomer, light can be
a form of pollution. As she wants to look into the heavens, the
skyscrapers are exhausting their fogs of electromagnetic radiation, the
Astronomer complains of too much light pollution. 
To the farmer, the lights burning in his greenhouses are not pollution,
but energy for photosynthesis. 

The lawyer has her view of light, as does the carpenter, the poet, the
painter, the butcher, the baker, the candle stick maker...so on....

But, we need to consider to what END all these perspective may be put or
aimed. 

Doug is talking about the practical interest or an interest in action. 
Surely on a practical level, slavery, as practiced by George Washington
(taking only Doug's example here as the actions of Washington and not
wanting to debate or even consider, for this example, an entire
historical record) is different in practice than what the work crew
under Mason experience. None of the men on Mason's crew is ever flogged.
None is hunted down when they run off. 

However, we also need to consider the poetic interest (making of) and
the theoretical interest (things as they are and not otherwise). 

And the sub-perspecives. 

More on this later.....


> 
> But, Dixon gives the best look at "what might have
> been" when he seizes The Driver's Whip  and frees the
> slaves, managing to restrain his violent urges -- he's
> freed himself from the vow to violence (he swears he
> will kill the slave driver but he chooses not to
> follow through) , Dixon's act (unlike the killing of
> the Lambton Worm, there's a "hero" for you, he needs
> the power of the supernatural to kill the Beast, andhe
> has to make a bloody bargain to do it, an Old
> Testament-style vow that leads to tragedy because he
> has promised blood for blood) won't lead to nine
> generations more of suffering  -- "what might have
> been", had righteous men and women stood up when they
> saw humans driven to market in the street (like
> William drives those pigs to market in GR) and just
> set them free, without further bloodshed:  "what might
> have been".  Yeah, this is a sad book, and Pynchon
> seems, at times, a sad and angry artist -- yet he
> manages to parse it with such wit, emotion, insight
> into the tragedy of humans caught up in this sadness.

Who tells the tale of the Worm? 
Did the hero sin or make some mistake when he swore his oaths? 
Could he have defeated the worm without the oaths? 
Should he have kept his oath and killed his father? 
What is the moral of this hero  story?