mddm 27: Franklin

[jbor]

on 12/1/02 1:14 PM, Bandwraith at aol.com at Bandwraith at aol.com wrote:

> Such an impression would not jibe at all with what is known about
> the historical Franklin, which is not to say that your interpretation
> of Pynchon's (or the Rev's) portrayal is not valid. I think mine
> is more interesting, however, and serves to include more degrees
> of freedom for the narrative. Contrary to your "little more than a
> dope dealer's crony," figuring Jere for a patsy," "insufferably
> smug and patronizing," connected...with a petty thief," which all
> seem rather biased to me.

You're entitled to say so I guess, but I don't believe it's an accurate
diagnosis at all. I could document the words, situation and descriptions
that Pynchon dresses Franklin in which have formed my impression, but
they're there in the text. Suffice to say, I have no bias against Franklin
that I'm aware of. You seem to want Pynchon's characterisation to retain the
aura of the "historical Franklin": "adept" "smooth", "ahead of the game",
"self-effacing", a brilliant man and philanthropist. No doubt he was all of
these things in life, but I don't think that you can substantiate the claim
that Pynchon's depiction of him in Ch. 27 is signalling much, or any, of
this data to the reader at all. Or, to put it another way, rather different
aspects of character and personality are being emphasised here.

> Franklin lets Mason know about Le Maire, something which Dixon
> has deliberately withheld.

Yes, what he lets Mason know about Dixon, and Dixon about Mason (the East
India Co., Sam Peach), is an attempt to undermine each man's faith in his
partner, to demonstrate that maybe the other is in "on the plot", to
exacerbate each one's *personal* paranoia, all in order to win over one or
both of their confidences. He's very insidious: trying to divide and rule,
you might say. And, of course, he'd seen their dossiers back in London,
knows what he's doing here.

> He then brings up the letter and
> provides valuable insight about something "...they will go back
> to again and again, unable to release..." [45.7]

But I don't think he's doing this as a favour! When neither of them falls
for his scams, and he realises that his cover has been blown, he still oozes
superiority: "should've just asked them at the Royal Society, being a member
after all.... " So smug. And then, in a blink, he takes another tack: the
letter. Again, he is trying to undermine their confidence. And this is
nowhere more apparent than when he finally tells them, "no offense,
Gentlemen", but there's a war against you lot looming here. Take that, you
duffers. Have a *pleasant* stay. It's just so snide: I'm surprised you don't
see it.

> In fact, this scene in the chemist's shoppe is more than just a
> reprise of the uneasy partnership forged by our two heroes
> below the decks of the Seahorse and later in the authoring of
> their courageous letter to the R.S, but it does serve to provide
> them with another opportunity to stand for one another, and once
> again, "In the crucial moments, neither Mason or  Dixon had
> fail'd the other." [43.9]

Indeed. It's interesting that Cha. and Jere. bump into Ben by accident, are,
respectively, almost-sycophantic and cautiously respectful because of his
reputation, and then remain deferential towards him even despite smoaking
the opportunistic and somewhat insulting Machiavellian tribulations he
subjects each of them to in the course of their interview.

> I think it significant that both Dixon and Mason piss
> during this scene- a form of release.

And, that they *don't* piss freely on the 24-hour coach ride to Virginia:

" ... so swiftly have they Travel'd, that they miss the Chance."

They have been set up by Franklin again, and, this time, it is *without*
realising it.


273.18 "Mr Tallihoe"  Tally-ho! The cry of fox-hunters on catching sight of
the fox. (_Brewer's_)

Tally-ho! indeed.

best