MDDM "Another Slave-Colony"

[jbor]

Bandwraith at aol.com wrote:

> I doubt Charlie would be joking about murdering Wicks
> because he was being "sexist,"

I didn't mean to imply this. Check out 84.23 and 85.30 for a further
demonstration, and explication, of Cha.'s (ill-)humour at this point.

> Still Wicks,
> inspite of your efforts to characterize him as sexist and
> lewd- rather a stretch in my opinion- is probably either
> gay or asexual. My vote is gay.

I think there's ample evidence of Wicks's propensity to lewdness. (55.18,
111-2) I'm not attempting to characterise him as sexist: I think the comment
he makes about Eve at 84.31 is of the "nod nod wink wink" variety, and the
blasphemy and pun about the Mango's "Bone" (the paragraph at 85.24) confirms
both his lewdness and his sexism. And I think that if anyone's (perhaps
latent) homosexuality is being hinted at it's Nev. Maskelyne's. (172-4)
 
>>> I'm still inclined to the view that it's Mason's self-absorption and
>>> perception of his own pre-eminence in the partnership rather than greater
>>> depth or degree of characterisation which is at work here...
> 
> Well all that pathology certainly takes some detailing to
> establish. I consider that "charaterization." All semantics
> aside, Mason's inner thoughts and feelings are presented
> in more detail. Call it whatever you wish.

I don't think that this is, on balance, significant, nor perhaps even
accurate. I think we are given deep insight into quite a few of the
characters' psyches, and that, in the narrative, we have viewed Mason from
without as often as we have from within.

snip
> 
> But Pynchon's Mason? Please point me to the relevant
> biographical/historical evidence for all that pathology
> you outlined above- I'll reserve judgement till I review
> it. 

According to the historical record, Mason's young wife had died suddenly.
Soon after this he was forced to abandon his two infant sons for the sake of
his career. Despite the fact that initially Rebekah was to accompany him to
Bencoolen, ultimately, and just after her death, he was allowed no say in
where he was sent, ordered to go to Cape Town by Bradley, the man he
supposed was his friend and mentor, even *after* an almost deadly attack by
a French frigate on the first run out. On his return to England his mentor
had died without his having had a chance to sort out things with him.
Pynchon extrapolates character from the biographical record. Pretty much all
we have on Dixon is that he was, according to legend, born in a coalmine.

With Pointy, or Wicks, on the other hand, it is wholly invention.

> Dixon is more
> carefree because he is not in charge. His career is not at
> stake. He would just as soon be running lines in Durham. He
> has no children, yet, nor an over-bearing father to whom he
> must legitimize his actions.

And these are the biographical details, the differences between the
circumstances of the two men, that Pynchon was working with.

While I agree that, according to the historical record, it is Mason who was
nominally in charge, I think Pynchon presents more than a little ambiguity
about who is effectively leading whom for most of the time. And, the simple
fact that it came to be known as the Mason-Dixon Line, and not merely the
Mason Line, perhaps provided pretext enough for this (fictional)
embellishment.

After perusing that Latrobe address which Dave Monroe linked, I find it a
remarkable coincidence that the initials of the three states are M and D and
P, and that it is in fact Philadelphia where Pynchon decided to stake his
(fictional) vantage point. And, perhaps, *his* "claim" . . .
 
best