re Re: MDDM Gershom's Intervention

[Doug Millison]

jbor:
>Just to sum up on my part, then, I'd counter that George Washington's
>definitely in the text, and in the scene (whereas George W. Bush isn't, of
>course), and so is Gershom (but not Sammy Davis Jr).

Of course I've made no claim that Bush is in M&D (eliminate straw man #1)
and I've said only that Gershom might be compared to Sammy Davis Jr, (straw
man #2).


> Both George and Gersh participate in the dialogue in Ch. 58, and
>utterances are specifically attributed to each of them in the text.


But not, unfortunately, the "utterances" on which your argument rests. It
is not altogether clear that Gershom is even present in this scene, and
Pynchon does not identify Washington as the speaker of the lines which form
the keystone of your interpretation. Read it as you like, but it's just
your opinion, not a definitive or final reading, which I am rather
surprised to see you claiming in the case of a Pynchon text given the way
you've always opposed such finality when suggested by others -- I guess
this is one of those cases where you've got the "magic eye", right? Of
course it's entirely OK for you to break the rules that you want others to
follow, although it is hypocritical.


> I was able to generate a substantial amount of additional textual
>material

Material that was mostly your own fanciful rewrites of what Pynchon
actually wrote in the text, adding elements not present (assigning lines of
dialogue to Washington in the absence of identification of same by
Pynchon), and ignoring much if not most of Pynchon's characterization.
This has been a particularly lame effort on your part.


> to confirm and corroborate the general impression I had that the
>depiction of George Washington in _M&D_ is a predominantly positive one.

I think you said it better in another post I just read where you wrote:
"it'd be interesting to reassess some of the more extravagant claims which
have been made vis à vis "Pynchon's politics", claims which do seem to
revolve around a fairly selective reading of that particular novel."  I
think it's rather cute the way that you claim objectivity when you put
forth an  obvious and consistent political agenda in your interpretations
of Pynchon.  Why not just take responsibility for your own political views
and defend them as such?

I'm glad I took the time to examine your claims about Washington and offer
an alternative to the absurdly simple-minded notion  that Pynchon affirms
Washington as slave-holder, when in fact his multi-dimensional depiction
undercuts received wisdom about Washington, slavery and racism in so many
fundamental ways, and  uncovers the multiple layers of hypocrisy and irony
that accompany white America's contemporary approach to racial politics.


>On to Ch. 61.


OK.