re Re: MDDM Washington

[Doug Millison]

jbor :
>From the context it does appear to me that GW speaks the line at 572.26 and
>Gershom the line at 572.28. Thus far there've been no persuasive suggestions
>to the contrary.

Assigning them as you have is an arbitrary choice -- you're making facts to
fit your story... and that's OK, people do it all the time, it's a very
human thing to do.

>any notion of indeterminacy should allow
>for possibilities rather than flatly deny them, shouldn't it?

Of course.  This principle applies to your choices in this indeterminate
situation, too. Let's consider some possibilities.

As long as it's agreed that the dialogue is attributed as you choose, no
problem.  But it's also true that any number of people in the tavern could
speak the statements quoted from 572.14 until 572.30 where Washington is
positively identified. You've led us through your chain of reasoning why
you choose particular  speakers for these lines, but there's  no reason why
they might not be attributed otherwise -- the subject matter is such that
it could concern just about anybody in Raleigh's Billiard-Room.   Mason has
after all encountered talk (and song) of nationalist rebellion all along
his "journey South" (570), and the narrator tells us explicitly that Mason
and Washington see "Their Tranquility is not long preserv'd, as more and
more arrive", any of whom might be the speaker of the lines surrounded by
quote marks beginning at 572,14 ("Even as Clearings....") as they interrupt
that "Tranquility".

The speech at 572.14 ("Even as clearings"...) does mention "ledger and
theodolite", indicating some familiarity with business and surveying -- but
the same speech also uses "boobies", recalling Cherrycoke's use of
"Boobyism"  in the Spritual Day Book  quote that Pynchon places at the
beginning of chapter 28 on page 275, where we first encounter Washington,
and  "Hindoos", another word that Cherrycoke  uses on  page 10.  It's even
conceivable that Cherrycoke speaks the quote beginning at line 572.14,  we
may be deep into one of the many convoluted narratological structures that
Pynchon often builds into the novel, in the hands of another narrator
entirely.  I don't know that for sure, of course, but can you deny it with
certainty? It might be Washington, but it just as easily might be someone
among the many people crowding into Raleigh's after Mason and Washington
arrive, or it might even be Cherrycoke.  We don't know for sure who's
speaking until  Pynchon clearly indicates that Washington is the speaker of
572.30.

Washington's speech at 572.30 seems to identify the speaker of the previous
quote ("Excuse me...") as Gershom, but that doesn't mean the line previous
to that ("Civility, Sir!...") has to be spoken by Washington.  If Gershom
has in fact interrupted somebody else's conversation, here in "this Smoak"
*anybody* could be the speaker of the conversation that Gershom
interrupted.  Later, the text undercuts any certainty that it is  Gershom,
leaving the reader to wonder at Washington's identification of the voice --
maybe all African-Americans just sound the same to him, or maybe he's
stoned, who knows?

And if you do assume that Washington speaks the line "Civility, Sir!...",
then who speaks the line before that? Is it credible that Mason would
include himself in that "we" ("that we're merely another kind of Nigger").
And if it's not Mason who speaks the line "Not only presuming us their
Subjects"), who speaks it and how do you know that? If  Washington speaks
"Not only presuming us their Subjects" then is Washington also the speaker
of the previous "Even as Clearings..." line, and if that's the case then
why  is "Not only presuming us their Subjects"  broken out as a separate
paragraph after the previous speech?

It is a confusing situation, not at all easy to sort out who's speaking
these lines.  Pynchon could have indicated more clearly who the speakers
are, but he chose not to, instead he leaves it unclear in the "Smoak."  It
may well be the way you (or I) assume, but it may not be. I don't think you
can demonstrate conclusively who speaks these lines, and I certainly don't
pretend to be able to do so either.


> Norman Fischer [...] has to, because it undermines
>his argument that Pynchon's GW is "ominous", "ridiculous", "depraved",
>"besotted", and so forth.

You don't pick and choose descriptors according to  the argument you want
to make?


>Back in the earlier chapter George describes himself as Gershom's "nominal
>Master" (279.31) - "nominal" meaning "in name only"


Yes, he does.  George chooses to minimize the fact that he owns Gershom,
possibly because he is genuinely fond of this slave, or for some other
unknown reason. I have a friend who likes to pretend that her dog owns her,
she talks that way all the time.  But we all  know that she owns the dog
all the same, that when she decides to leave the dog at home, or forgets to
feed it, there's not a damn thing the dog can do about it. She is a very
humane pet owner, by the way.


>and the scene at Mt
>Vernon does demonstrate the genuine friendship and rapport which exists
>between the two men.

Debatable.  I prefer the term I used earlier:  folie a deux.


>George respects and treats Gershom as his intellectual
>(and human) equal

 Everything that's said and done in the scene can also be explained by a
relationship that permits  intimacies between two parties who otherwise
remain unequal, such as the master-slave relationships that produced
bastard children (what the Vrooms try to force Austra to do with Mason
earlier in the novel, for example, or would you also argue that they treat
her as an "equal"?) that then became the property (and profit source) of
the master.  Pynchon shows the Washington household in this instance as a
casual place, certainly, where master and slave party together -- but that
doesn't change the fact that they remain fixed in their roles as master and
slave.


>it's the notion that Negroes weren't *already* and
>unquestionably "the intellectual equals of whites", and the condescending
>suggestion that they needed "opportunities to advance" before they could
>become the "intellectual equals" of whites, which is racist.


More than a few historians believe that Washington -- the historical
Washington to which Pynchon's text points -- did share this racist
attitude, which I agree is extremely condescending.  (As the husband in a
cross-cultural, interracial marriage, I do my best to avoid adopting racist
attitudes or behaviors.)


>Questions about what George's "escaped slaves" might have thought are beside
>the point, as it's not something Pynchon addresses in the novel,


We're back to a question that came up when reading GR -- is the WWII in
that novel the same WWII that took place in the 20th century?  Is the
Reagan in Vineland the same Reagan who was President of the US?  Is the
George Washington in M&D the George Washington of American history? Yes and
no.  Pynchon blends history and fiction, mixing elements of both throughout
M&D, as he does in his other novels.  Looking to the historical record is
something he has obviously done in writing the novel, and it seems
legitimate for a reader to do this while reading it. You have often done so
in making the various points you've made in this discussion over the past
couple of years.  Of course M&D addresses the historical Washington, as
Pynchon creates a character, to suit the novel's fictional purposes, based
on the historical Washington.  It's both/and, not either/or -- a mix of
history *and* fiction.


>The
>pertinent issue, for me, anyway, is [...]  how his depiction of the
>relationship between George and Gersh
>subverts the revisionist stereotype of GW as an "evil" and hypocritical man,
>as someone to be ridiculed and scorned.


Is there really such a thing as a "revisionist stereotype of GW as an
"evil" and hypocritical man"? I think he's hypocritical, but I wouldn't
call him "evil" -- he's far more complex than that.  I know several  M&D
readers who see Washington ridiculed and scorned in the novel. The current
revisionist picture -- Pynchon's starting point -- is a Washington with
many contradictions (slave-owning, etc.), correcting the earlier, haloed
hagiography that includes the cherry tree tale.


>The way Fischer constructs his thesis

I've been discussing M&D, not Fischer's article.  It sounds as if you have
issues with Fischer's approach, too.

Thanks for helping me think this all through.