MDDM Strange symbiosis? (Re: Gershom & the LED

[Bandwraith at aol.com]

In a message dated 1/19/02 10:24:51 PM, jbor at bigpond.com writes:

>>And, thus, there is the "co-dependence" of "Slave-and-Master" as well. But I
think one of Gershom's points might well be that there are always
differences in the way that social authority is articulated. In individual
instances, such as in the court of a benevolent despot, or in his own
situation in Washington's household, it ain't all bad for the priveleged
subordinate. In fact, it's quite a luxury ride. In other words, there are
good-humoured kings, just as there are good-humoured masters, like George.<<

Point taken, and refining the analysis of the Joax a bit further, evidence
for references as to how the power will be sorted between "the King" and
the people (or their elected representatives) can be seen. In the first joke
the fool puts himself in the role of executive: wit but no money, and puts
the king in the role of congress: money but no wit. In the second joke, the
relationship between the diplomatic core and the executive is defined. In the
third joke, the king's power to make political appointments and the fool's 
(congress) repsonsibility to advise and consent is acknowledged.

The fourth joke, my favorite, speaks to the separate relationship between
"the king" and the people (as opposed to a prime minister)- The Fool and The
King on their own, out of town, without a carriage- Each must carry the
other halfway back to town. Mutual co-dependence at its best.

Political history is not my strong suit, but I seem to recall a particular
fear of Kings being one of the more prevalent forces at work in 1788.


>>I think another obvious connection in the Joaks is with King Lear's Fool.

In the novel there are many examples of underlings who are required to "sing
for their supper", as it were, who need to "perform" in order to establish
their credibility and maintain a comfortable place within the society they
are compelled to inhabit: Gershom here, the LED, but Wicks and Austra too,
and also M & D themselves. And, of course, Pynchon. The thing is, in almost
every instance and situation the supposed inferior is actually set up as
cleverer and more perceptive than the proprietors whom she or he ostensibly
serves, or entertains (the tales are told primarily from within these
characters' points of view as well), and a large part of the performance is
always the subordinates' capacity to cast a satiric eye on the follies and
foibles of their masters.<<