MDDM Washington

[jbor]

on 8/7/02 2:02 PM, Doug Millison at millison at online-journalist.com wrote:

> 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.

The sentence which precedes the "Even as Clearings ... " speech reads:

    Their Tranquillity is not long preserv'd, as more and more arrive in
    Raleigh's Billiard-Room, 'round the fam'd great Table.

So it's pretty likely that the "Even as Clearings ... " speech is from one
of these "more and more" who have interrupted George and Chas's
"Tranquillity", as you do note. If this is the case, then it isn't GW, and
it isn't Mason. I don't think it can be Wicks, as the speaker uses the
pronouns "we" and "them" to include himself amongst the Americans who are
being "driven" by the British. So, having narrowed it down in this way,
let's call this speaker "anonymous colonial revolutionary no. 1", shall we.

> 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.  

But you haven't even attempted to offer a reason why Gershom says what he
says, or why he decides to interrupt here, or even why he's at Raleigh's in
the first place. For your theory to work the whole exchange, the whole scene
even, needs to be meaningless.

And, just what is it that does disrupt Washington's and Mason's
"Tranquillity"? Is it only the conversation of these other gents, or, as is
far more likely in my opinion, is it the use of the racist term "Nigger",
and George's swift and stern rebuke which follows?

> 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?

Well, no, this is inaccurate. Pynchon's text does indicate that Gershom is
present. 

    Others, having caught Gershom's act before, recognize him right away.
                                                            (573.4)

And one of these other patrons actually calls out to Gersh at 573.6.

> And if you do assume that Washington speaks the line "Civility, Sir!...",
> then who speaks the line before that?

I think it highly likely that it's a second gent from the "more and more"
who have interrupted George and Chas's "Tranquillity", someone responding to
the first anonymous speaker. I've called this chap "anonymous colonial
revolutionary no. 2". I don't think it's credible that it's Mason or
Washington, if those are the only two alternatives on offer.

I don't think the scene's confusing, or that it's meant to be unclear. I
think you find it difficult to acknowledge and accept the bleeding obvious.
Whatever, we disagree. Good. There's not much point going over and over it.

>> 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. 

Well, no, this is inaccurate. George has just described the liberty Gershom
enjoys as a performer, and the "income *per annum*" which he makes. He
indicates to Dixon and Mason that he is Gershom's "Master" in name only. The
description "nominal Master" is George's, his sentiment, his opinion of the
relationship between he and Gershom. This speech is definitively attributed
to GW by Pynchon. It discloses George's attitude towards Gershom.

>> The way Fischer constructs his thesis
> 
> I've been discussing M&D, not Fischer's article.

I read Fischer's essay on _M&D_, and made some comments on it, and you
jumped all over that post, within a few minutes. You also made reference to
the essay excerpts when Otto posted them, I recall. Though there are errors
and omissions in the essay it's much more interesting and relevant to the
novel than your palaver has been, but I'm glad that you now seem to be
getting something out of the MDDM.

best